Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text

[Sean Gillies <[e-mail]>]

Thumbs up from me. Thanks, Alissa.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
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