[Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf-geojson-00-01: (with BLOCK)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 03 September 2015 11:15 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 184E41AC40B; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 cI_IvhUTYTWr; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378F01A212A; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150903111519.12341.48799.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 04:15:19 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/3hZxYTpkkKAv_sxbpWF2bNX0lSY>
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, dret@berkeley.edu
Subject: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf-geojson-00-01: (with BLOCK)
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 11:15:21 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-geojson-00-01: Block When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-geojson/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems like a fine thing to do, but I have one concern I'd like to chat about before we go ahead. I could buy the "no privacy issues here" argument except for the last sentence which says: "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." Aside from being hard to parse, that seems to mean that some extensions could mean this format does become a RFC6280 Location object, which would then bring in the privacy and security issues, previously argued to be out of scope. I think that's a contradiction. As it happens, I also think that, despite folks best efforts, RFC6280 isn't an architecture that worked out that well, so I'd not suggest that this wG try emulate that with square brackets. Instead, I'd suggest that this WG be chartered to never take on work with does have security or privacy consequences (without a re-charter). That'd maybe mean a change in the last sentence such as: OLD: 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: In order to continue to validly avoid having to deal with the security and privacy issues that would arise, this WG will not define any extensions that would have the effect of making a geojson object an RFC6280 location object or location information as defined by RFC3693. Should such an extension be needed, re-chartering will be required. My propsed NEW text is very clunky so probably needs improving.
- [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Carl Reed
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Robin Wilton
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-… Carl Reed