Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text

Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com> Fri, 11 September 2015 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A636B1B5006; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJUDRSE7kUxh; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B2541B5007; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so69882234wic.0; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xX6XxnA2rhxH1Jg6yeKqzJRv0vK8qI3GVXFBpAi+1pc=; b=Sc51sMNjz5zxAIV92Puw7mrdWtRB1NqLNWuy5Ud5FpeIElj++3IwS9qC/RuJdG0lLn IVKsREioO462zm6F4HuKF2jQ/FydHAIKEFqKpyfhq8P8wEVOhv+LqqQofq1qht8mjJjh teEMmVDaoHuAUfgnsmV+60tlzG7nykxlBeUyJ24kw1U+8CVJDzx/sCercf71LGNcU32J Nn7/pQFtT9hU6qDFjOnP8BQ/WTz//NlA0sqSWuGpNPVEf+G074ew43NX7MVsEes9MMfC ecKC7oyVHsDxUFgBVewTCYb5xL+55YFjXSAnbzn/2m5BqaqSlaxvjRYB1D0m4yCWGNHm 4jcg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.138 with SMTP id cm10mr17923023wib.33.1441987338576; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.22.7 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55F2A480.6080508@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <B1DACD22-B712-42A1-A71D-1415E6F3BEAB@cooperw.in> <55F219D6.2090208@alum.mit.edu> <55F2A480.6080508@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:02:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOodmJqqr-=kz29nduwxU98ODDy+0OxvHEiiKB7SJ7p3EcAMGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be24e1629e1051f7ad738
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/2CGTzV2tMaLYjGa2-w7b8H1rj1o>
Cc: geopriv mailing list <geopriv@ietf.org>, DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/geopriv/>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:02:27 -0000

Thumbs up from me. Thanks, Alissa.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
wrote:

>
> Looks good,
> S.
>
> On 11/09/15 01:01, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> > WFM.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Paul
> >
> > On 9/10/15 7:14 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> >> I’ve made an update to the geojson charter text in response to the list
> >> discussion with Paul, Carl, and Stephen. I have removed the text about
> >> location objects since that seemed to confuse people and was superfluous
> >> given the point being made about target identity. I also changed the
> >> last sentence per my exchange with Stephen, but inserted a note about
> >> the extensibility of the format to try to capture Robert’s earlier
> >> comments. The changes to the paragraph are below and the full charter is
> >> at <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-geojson/>;. Please
> shout
> >> if you think this charter is not ready for external review.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Alissa
> >>
> >> OLD
> >>
> >> GeoJSON objects represent geographic features only and do not specify
> >> associations between geographic features and particular devices,
> >> users, or
> >> facilities. Any association with a particular device, user, or
> >> facility requires
> >> another protocol. As such, a GeoJSON object does not fit the "Location
> >> Information" definition according to Section 5.2 of RFC 3693, because
> >> there is
> >> not necessarily a "Device" involved. Because there is also no way to
> >> specify the
> >> identity of a "Target" within the confines of a GeoJSON object, it
> >> also does not
> >> fit the specification of a "Location Object" (Section 5.2 of RFC 3693,
> >> Section
> >> 3.2 of RFC 6280). When a GeoJSON object is used in a context where it
> >> identifies
> >> the location of a Target, it becomes subject to the architectural,
> >> security, and
> >> privacy considerations in RFC 6280. The application of those
> >> considerations is
> >> specific to protocols that make use of GeoJSON objects and is out of
> >> scope for
> >> the GeoJSON WG. As the WG considers extensibility it will be careful
> >> not to
> >> preclude extensions that would allow GeoJSON objects to become
> >> location objects
> >> unless the group determines such extensibility would be harmful.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> NEW
> >>
> >> GeoJSON objects represent geographic features only and do not specify
> >> associations between geographic features and particular devices,
> >> users, or
> >> facilities. Any association with a particular device, user, or
> >> facility requires
> >> another protocol. When a GeoJSON object is used in a context where it
> >> identifies
> >> the location of a device, user, or facility, it becomes subject to the
> >> architectural, security, and privacy considerations in RFC 6280. The
> >> application
> >> of those considerations is specific to protocols that make use of
> GeoJSON
> >> objects and is out of scope for the GeoJSON WG. Although the WG is
> >> chartered to
> >> improve the extensibility of the format, extensions that would allow
> >> GeoJSON
> >> objects to specify associations between geographic features and
> >> particular
> >> devices, users, or facilities are not expected to be defined in the
> >> WG. Should
> >> that be needed, re-chartering will be required.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Sean Gillies