RE: [Ecrit] LoST

["Winterbottom, James" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,

The concern I have is that GPS is not only cellular.
It is being used in WiFI and will be used from the get go in WiMAX.
The only profiles that will be mandatory to support are those in the
basic LoST specification, so the decision is generally unacceptable from
a deployment perspective.

I don't agree with the assessment below either.
I can easily see that LIS could provide a PIDF-LO to me that I have
provided satellite pseudo-ranges for. So again I remain unconvinced by
this debate. It is far simpler to interpret the ellipse and circle types
than a polygon, and to be frank from an end-point or measure location
perspective far more likely to be provided.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 6:55 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] LoST
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Winterbottom, James wrote:
> > Hi Hannes,
> >
> > That makes perfect sense.
> >
> > The issue that I am most concerned about is the limitation in the
shape
> > representation in the basic location profile. As it currently stands
I
> > cannot use standard GPS related shapes, my end-point has to
interpret
> > location and put into a profile. This is incompatible with a large
> > number of solutions deployed today on which many deployments will be
> > based, at least initially. I strongly urge this WG to reconsider
this
> > restriction and include circle, and ellipse at a minimum.
> >
> Some time back we also discussed this issue and the conclusion was the
> following:
> * Let us build a mechanism in there to have a mechanism to extend the
> location shapes.
> * Let us specify simple location shapes first.
> 
> I know that there is this limitation with geodetic shapes and a
separate
> location profile would be needed to address GPS and the cellular
world.
> On the cellular aspect we also had a discussion with the 3GPP. There
> they are currently not using LoST at the end point since they are
> focusing on a different architecture (see
>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-ecrit-architecture-overview-
> 00).
> Even if they would use LoST at the end point they most likely want to
> hide the location information of the end point or to make use of
> information like cell ids (as recorded in the issue tracker a while
ago:
> http://www.tschofenig.priv.at:8080/lost/issue16).
> 
> Now, everything boils down to the question of GPS. Since GPS produces
> data in a format that is not PIDF-LO alike we can already assume that
> the end host has to understand the format. It can now encode it in
> different ways. In previous discussions a couple of us wanted to add a
> polygon as a location profile to the LoST document since it would also
> address the location hiding requirement. Since this issue came also up
> in the location hiding context we postpone this topic entirely.
> 
> Hence, it is up to us to come up with a location profile that supports
> * a circle
> * an ellipse
> * a polygon,
> * a combination of the above
> * cell-ids
> if we think there is a need todo so.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> > Cheers
> > James
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 4:58 PM
> >> To: Winterbottom, James
> >> Cc: ECRIT
> >> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] LoST
> >>
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> let me pick a concrete example: LoST server discovery.
> >> Currently, we have specified the usage of DHCP and DNS. Only the
> >>
> > former
> >
> >> allows to discover the LoST server in the access network. I am,
> >>
> > however,
> >
> >> aware of the work on HELD discovery, see
> >>
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-
> >> 01.txt,
> >> that aims to discover a HELD server in the access network using DNS
> >> mechanisms.
> >>
> >> Now, even though the current LoST draft does not describe how to
> >> discover a LoST server using DNS in the access network that can be
> >> extended later when the above document is generalized (which I
think
> >> would be a good idea).
> >>
> >> Does that make sense to you?
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> >> Winterbottom, James wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Hannes,
> >>>
> >>> What exactly do you mean by postponed?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 5:58 AM
> >>>> To: ECRIT
> >>>> Subject: [Ecrit] LoST
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> during the WGLC we have received a number of comments. Then, we
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> delayed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> the completion of the work because of the location hiding
> >>>>
> > discussions.
> >
> >>>> Now, you can find the latest version of the document at:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost/draft-ietf-ecrit-los
> >
> >>> t-
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 06.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> We have also updated the DHCP-based LoST discovery draft (based
on
> >>>>
> > the
> >
> >>>> comments we received from the DHC working group). The document
can
> >>>>
> > be
> >
> >>>> found here:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-tschofenig-dhc-lost-discovery/draft-
> >
> >>>> ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery-02.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, here is the unfortunate news: It seems that we did not
submit
> >>>>
> > the
> >
> >>>> LoST draft :-(
> >>>> Everyone was assuming that someone else is going to submit it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ciao
> >>>> Hannes
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: James has recently sent a number of comments. Some of them
got
> >>>> reflected in the document (namely the editorial onces). Others
got
> >>>> intentionally postponed since we discussed them already in the
> >>>>
> > past.
> >
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Ecrit mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> ------------------------
> >>
> >>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> >>> contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> >>> If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> >>> immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
> >>> this email is prohibited.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> ------------------------
> >>
> >>> [mf2]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
> > This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> > immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
> > this email is prohibited.
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
> > [mf2]
> >
> >
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit