Hi all:

I see that I'm a few days late with this review, sorry about that.

I have performed an Operations Directorate review of
  draft-ietf-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery-07

  "The residential gateway is a device that has become an integral part
   of home networking equipment.  Discovering a Location Information
   Server (LIS) is a necessary part of acquiring location information
   for location-based services.  However, discovering a LIS when a
   residential gateway is present poses a configuration challenge,
   requiring a method that is able to work around the obstacle presented
   by the gateway.

   This document describes a solution to this problem.  The solution
   provides alternative domain names as input to the LIS discovery
   process based on the network addresses assigned to a Device."

- - - -

1. Is the specification complete?  Can multiple interoperable
     implementations be built based on the specification?

This draft explains the problem clearly, points out that effective
solutions to it have been standardised (DHCP, LIS Discovery [RFC 5986]),
these will take a long time to deploy in home gateways.  This draft
proposes another approach as a shorter-term way around the problem.

It describes that approach in reasonable detail, I believe there's
enough there to allow it to be implemented.

2. Is the proposed specification deployable?  If not, how could it be
     improved?

Yes.

3. Does the proposed approach have any scaling issues that could
     affect usability for large scale operation?

This approach is aimed at finding a Location Information Server (LIS)
for residential networks, within a single ISP.  As such, it doesn't
have to scale up any further.

4. Are there any backward compatibility issues?

No.

5. Do you anticipate any manageability issues with the specification?

No.  Except that ISPs will need to ensure that their residential customers
systems find their correct LIS, and that LIS must not give away information
about address ranges other than the one any particular customer is using.

6. Does the specification introduce new potential security risks or
     avenues for fraud?

Yes, but these seem adequately covered in its sections on Scurity, Privacy
and IAB Considerations.

Just one tiny typo:

- penultimate paragraph of section 7,
    s/even in the trusted source/even if the trusted source/

Cheers, Nevil
Co-chair, IPFIX and EMAN WGs

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nevil Brownlee                          Computer Science Department
 Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
 FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand