[arch-d] Re: Call for Comment: <draft-iab-ip-geo-workshop-report-01> (Report from the IAB Workshop on IP Address Geolocation)

[Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review, Eliot.

To address your first point, I’ve opened the following pull request: https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-iab-ip-geo-workshop-report/pull/16

Regarding your second point, it’s certainly true that regulation in this space could change the requirements. That wasn’t specifically discussed in the workshop, so isn’t discussed in the report, but that is a thing we ought to collectively consider.

Best,
Tommy

> On May 20, 2026, at 11:48 PM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This report reads pretty well, but I have two points I'd ask the board and others to consider:
> 
> First, the following sentence in Section 5.2 leaves me just a little bit unsatisfied:
> 
> 
>>     [SZAMONEK], [LAOUAR], and [PAULY] propose
>>    various ways forward here.  These explore ways to let users provide
>>    location hints with consent, and involve trying to provide explicit
>>    signals that involve trust and verifiability.
> 
> Could you please add at least one sentence more about each of these papers to explain what they do?  On the whole, the report is long on problems and short on solutions.  
> 
> Second, please keep in mind that there is also one "solution" not mentioned, which would be regulations that would require certain devices to accurately report their locations without user consent.  That will happen if the existing capability is degraded to the point that it is viewed as not meeting the needs of societies.  Companies like Apple, Google, and Samsung have no armies with which to prevent it.  Neither does the IETF, although we do now have the Internet Protocol Police[1].
> 
> Eliot
> 
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9948.html
> 
> 
> 
> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>_______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]