[Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 10 September 2015 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 DAA361B2AA6 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 ehw80GTOQxJn for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42EA1A87C5 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6862062D for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:14:03 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=yn8FMxx23PT3IhGs73QD9U1+XT0 =; b=FF1qYbzKaJmtIFb8AteXjwFlpsnaDL+T2gf4KUD/b0sM7SBMqFNoQpNTC+t hi4/mDidtvJ8vpOHysyjcqjdSDbtdNJ33pEl2FS3ThFLpRh/xrMP8x/IAE8GSlcC 4/OklHAN1TNOjix9GnPVZN+AHYcagUyygviXvOX3z/5rTkXw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=yn 8FMxx23PT3IhGs73QD9U1+XT0=; b=pAelHsdOqMLQXE/p0mkhDIWE5hOkBQYdHX 7H5aqC5M19pS2m1DWgTfFRlnq9UW1F1YpbIoeBeZh3d3I9BV958PJXLXpZXCjMos jMB5OEzIxPqBbl7EvjrPldAc5DyHa0JOgTa+O5vcz+4WCaQXzasU02cFkM2b9gCt vE5dwYLes=
X-Sasl-enc: H7tAt0CfpigNLIBgGYV/LSgrwg1MH6jmDrcetr69UBhJ 1441926842
Received: from dhcp-171-68-21-63.cisco.com (dhcp-171-68-21-63.cisco.com [171.68.21.63]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2BE71680154; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:14:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE9233BC-80DC-4B45-9712-DFB1E5897D74"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:14:01 -0700
Message-Id: <B1DACD22-B712-42A1-A71D-1415E6F3BEAB@cooperw.in>
To: dispatch@ietf.org, geopriv mailing list <geopriv@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/5ft-mUJKsoXm5mCEf3XX8x-WlhE>
Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: [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: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:14:06 -0000

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/ <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.