RE: [Ecrit] LoST

["Dawson, Martin" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Hannes,

Yes, I'm suggesting that since the profile spec is about to go RFC, that
the LoST spec might just as well reference it so we have a consistent
ecology of specs. I think that having a subsequent spec make the profile
mandatory would only be an issue if it came after LoST was implemented.
On the other hand, if we assume it will happen before LoST is
implemented, then why not just include the requirement now.

With respect to GPS - a LIS (LCS, whatever) could utilize any suitable
protocol, including SUPL, to do GPS interactions with the client - it
still casts the result as a PIDF-LO in the response. I'm not really
thinking of the situation where the device does a GPS fix or gets it
from some other non-PIDF-LO source. In that case, I'd certainly agree
that the device may as well transcode it into the basic form. I'm not
really concerned about that situation.

Cheers,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 7:33 PM
To: Dawson, Martin
Cc: Winterbottom, James; ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] LoST

Hi Martin,

Dawson, Martin wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> This seems a bit bogged down in the here and now... A LIS for almost
any
> access technology, with or without GPS, could produce a geo-shape as a
> consequence of the location-determination technique it employs. What
> 3GPP may be thinking now doesn't seem particularly pertinent.
>   
True. A LCS (this is the correct terminology now) can indeed produce a 
PIDF-LO with the Geo-Shapes format.

When you use a GPS receiver today (and probably for a long time) then it

does not produce a format in XML format since there is just no LCP 
involved.

> There's already a pdif-lo-profile draft ([sic] is the spelling ever
> going to get corrected btw or is a title immutable?) that states what
> shapes should be used and defines what the LIS clients can expect to
> receive.
>   
We decided not to change the file name. When the document gets published

as RFC then the filename does not matter anway.
Btw, we recognized the wrong spelling with version -04 or so.

> While I accept that a LoST implementor could add support for that
> profile, as long as it is optional to do so, the client cannot be sure
> that anything other than a point will be supported.
A new document can also say that the new location profile is mandatory 
to implement. Do you think that will be a problem?

>  This adds the dual
> issue of making the client always convert to a point form and/or
> eliminating the prospect of LoST servers being able to do more
> sophisticated routing based on weighted coverage by uncertainty.
>
> Rather than invite the compatibility issue at a later date, wouldn't
it
> be more prudent just to add the requirement now?
>   
No doubt that we could add an additional location profile right now.

I am just repeating what we agreed earlier in the working group on this 
particular issue. If the working group now thinks that this is a problem

then we should re-consider it. I just want to open-up previously closed 
or postponed issues too quickly.


Ciao
Hannes

> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> -----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.com/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]
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]


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