Re: [Ecrit] LoST

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

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.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]
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
>
>   


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