Re: [Ecrit] LoST

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

Winterbottom, James wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> The concern I have is that GPS is not only cellular.
>   
I know that GPS has nothing todo with cellular systems.
I haven't said that.

> 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.
>   
You can also define extensions that a mandatory to implement in another 
document.

> I don't agree with the assessment below either.
>   
With with point in particular?

> I can easily see that LIS could provide a PIDF-LO to me that I have
> provided satellite pseudo-ranges for.
Let's assume the GPS that is being used today. There is no PIDF-LO in use.

>  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.
>   
That's fine since we don't have a polygon in the LoST document either.


Ciao
Hanes

>
>   
>> -----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