Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75

["Thomson, Martin" <[e-mail]>]

My memory isn't that good and I had a splitting headache at the time, but I can't remember this:

Cullen: I believe we agreed to not do the 'authorized third
parties'.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2009 10:34 AM
> To: 'GEOPRIV'
> Subject: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75
> 
> Draft minutes for the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 74 are below.  Please
> send
> comments to the list no later than Friday, 7 Aug 2009.
> --Richard
> 
> 
> ----------
> Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF75
> 
> Summary (prepared by Richard Barnes):
> 
> 1. Agenda Bash
> Brian Rosen requested 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss
> his drafts on extensions to the PIDF-LO civic address elements.  James
> Polk volunteered 10 minutes of his time for dhcp-lbyr-uri-option to
> extend discussion of geopriv-arch.
> 
> 2. Geolocation URI
>     draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri
> Alex Mayrhofer presented a brief update on the WG draft describing a
> URI
> scheme for geolocation.  The current version adds a CRS parameter, and
> the next will address comments from the URI-Review mailing list.
> 
> 3. Location Filters
>     draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters
> Brian Rosen presented a brief update on the WG draft describing a
> filter
> language for location updates.  The current draft is a significant
> update from prior versions, basing the filters on the general RFC 4661
> filter syntax.
> 
> 
> 4. GEOPRIV Architecture
>     draft-ietf-geopriv-arch
> Alissa Cooper presented an update on the WG draft describing an overall
> privacy architecture for GEOPRIV.  The developemnt of the current
> version was focused on refining terminology, in particular the meaning
> of the term "LIS"; discussion of that topic continued in the meeting,
> with no clear resolution.
> 
> 5. Location URIs in DHCP
>     draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option
> James Polk presented an update on the WG draft describing a mechanism
> for carrying location URIs in DHCP.  Hannes Tschofenig submitted an
> extensive review of the current version of the document, and James is
> still working through these comments.  James agreed to send a summary
> of
> the open issues in the draft to the list.  Several participants said
> that the current prohibition against the use of HTTP URIs should be
> modified to permit at least some classes of HTTP URIs.
> 
> 
> 6. Updates to DHCP Geodetic Location (RFC 3825bis)
>     draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
> Bernard Aboba presented an update on the WG draft that makes a series
> of
> udpates to address errors and unclear points in RFC 3825.  Individual
> changes are being tracked using the issue tracker on tools.ietf.org,
> and
> most are awaiting text from their assigned authors.
> 
> 7. IEEE Liaison
> Dorothy Stanley, chair of IEEE 802.11 TGv, presented a liaison
> statement
> from 802.11 to GEOPRIV requesting that GEOPRIV develop a binary
> encoding
> for the GML shapes that are available in XML, mainly for use in
> interior
> location scenarios.  Some participants addressed doubts as to the
> utility of such a translation, but others supported working on this
> topic.  Discussion will continue on how to respond to this request.
> 
> 8. HELD Extensions
>     draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-deref
>     draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions
>     draft-thomson-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery
>     draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements
> Martin Thomson led a discussion on a series of proposed HELD
> extensions.
>   He gave a brief description of each document, with some group
> discussion after each description.  Privacy concerns continue to be a
> significant concern for the HELD Identity extension, and there is
> continuing debate over the need for special mechanisms for residential
> gateways.  Shows of hands indicated varying degrees of support for
> these
> drafts, but rough consensus to work on all four.  Discussion on how to
> sequence these drafts will continue.
> 
> 9. PIDF-LO Civic Address Extensions
>     draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior
>     draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix
> Brian Rosen introduced two drafts that extend the PIDF-LO civic address
> structrure to include (1) "prefix" elements that match current "suffix"
> elements, and (2) a generic element "INT" to represent interior
> location
> elements.  The major issue with the INT element right now is whether to
> register values for it: Some view registration as necessary to avoid
> ambiguity, while others note that the lack of standards for building
> models could cause a lot of noise in the registry.  A show of hands
> indicated strong support for working on the -prefix draft; discussion
> will continue on the -pidf-interior draft.
> 
> 
> 
> Raw notes from Marc Linsner follow:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Geopriv Notes
> 
> Agenda Bash: brian wants to discuss INT
>      James wants lbyr longer
> 
> status update: charter updated; W3C GeoLocation last call deadline this
> Friday;
> 
> Lightning Round:
> 
> Alex - GeoURI - discussion around CRS - consensus seems to be that
> WGS84
> should be default, but don't preclude other CRS, solution in the
> current
> draft.  Is a URI parameter registry needed? What about privacy
> policies?
> 
> Brian - loc-filters - 05 released this morning; now based on RFC4661;
> several changes - read the slides/text!  Issue: Normal Reference to -
> dynamic
> which is experimental
> 
> Alissa - Geo-arch: not trying to dramatically change from existing
> Geopriv
> work or implementations. Describe what a 'LIS' means; James - the
> current
> definition of LIS seems to fit the HELD arch but no necessarily the
> DHCP
> architecture.  Brian - there is current usage of LIS includes
> dereference.
> Marc - the term LIS is still muddy. Jon - What's wrong with the current
> text? - Brian - like I just said, 'own location' does not cover
> dereferencing.  Ray - ???
> 
> James Polk - lbyr uri - chose the auth. security model; rewrote the
> intro;
> addressed Ted's concern; Hannes is addressing things from the 00 draft
> 2+
> years ago.  Some of Hannes' comments were good.  Keith: this is a wg
> draft?
> You are not the arbitrator of the text, the wg is.  Hannes is
> commenting on
> the jabber...(read the jabber).  Jon: I'm lazy, I read the doc for the
> first
> time today.  I am curious why only SIP, SIPS, PRES uri?  Why not HTTP
> uris.
> James: Jon you agreed to this earlier.  Ted: you need structure around
> the
> URIs, hence this restriction.  We need to work on this.  Jon, we need
> HTTP
> uri support. Ted: if we had support for a HELD uri would that satisfy
> your
> concern.  Brian: I want to support HELD uris  James: this needs to be
> run by
> Lisa. Ted: I'll take the task to run this by Lisa.  Cullen: I agree
> Ted,
> we'll work this out.
> 
> Bernard - rfc3825bis - started with 3825; we have an issue tracker; we
> will
> make changes based on list discussion and consensus.  Issue 9 & 10
> closed;
> Issue 1 resolved; Issue 2 needs list discussion; Issue 5 has been sent
> to
> the list; Issue .... (read slides) Keith: does the assignee have more
> authority?  Bernard, all text will be discussed on the list.  Martin: I
> have
> proposals...I'm don't have motivation.  Richard: please copy/cut paste
> from
> your other draft.
> 
> Dorothy Stanley - IEEE liaison - chair 802.11tgv and liaison to IETF -
> summarize the letter sent last week.  (read slides)  covered background
> of
> 802.11 location work.  IEEE is requesting the IETF to extend the BINARY
> representation of the location objects to include shapes, etc.  Cullen
> -
> verify the dates....wg doc. Brian questioned the usefulness. Martin
> supported Brian.  Marc - IEEE is asking for xml to tlv mapping, not
> critque
> of their application.  Ted - decide to do the work, then have the
> application discussion Hannes - 3GPP has already done this work.
> Dorothy -
> we chose to come to IETF first.  Gabor - Nobody has this defined, not
> in
> 3GPP
> 
> Martin Thomson - HELD extensions - 4 drafts - deref, identity
> extensions,
> res-gw-lis-discovery, held measurements.  Derefernce - do people think
> this
> is useful/necessary?  Identity - (read slides) - Marc:   Brian: I don't
> see
> anything in the doc about a 3rd party using IP address to ask for
> someone's
> location. Cullen: I believe we agreed to not do the 'authorized third
> parties'.  (missed some)  Ted: I agree with Marc...you are changing the
> rules around LCP.  The draft needs to explain why/how we are changing
> the
> LCP rules before becoming a wg draft.  Martin: the doc talks about the
> need
> for authorization.  Jon: We need to solve this problem and need to
> prioritize this as the first problem.  Bernard: Maybe break off the
> third
> party issue and deal with it separately.  Lis Discovery: a large group
> of
> home gw devices don't support this. Cullen: it's too strong a
> statement,
> some devices do support.  (Ray Bellis): this overloads option 15 and
> use of
> it.   Cullen: if we have a solution that is supported on some of the
> existing, we need to use it.  Ray Bellis: this draft will work with no
> work
> in the home gateway.  Measurements: necessary for cooperative location
> determination.  Brian: I think this is the least interesting of the 4
> Marc:
> please characterize measurements and identity extensions.  Ray Bellis:
> In
> the UK, we need identity and res-gw-discovery
> 
> Richard: Any more comments on the prioritization??  Identity Extensions
> then
> HomeGw LIS Discovery
> 
> Brian: Concerns over putting deref off for another year.
> 
> Jabber room: all 4 are equally important
> 
> HUMS:
> Those in support of the group working on Deref:  (no hums)
> Those no in support of the group working on Deref: (no hums)
> 
> Should the wg work on a deref for HELD: (little hums)
> (never asked for the opposite)
> 
> Should geopriv address the problems of Identity?  (17 hands raised)
> Against (1 hand raised)
> 
> Gateway discovery problem, in favor (9 hands raised)
> Against? (1 hand raised)
> 
> Measurements, (8 hands raised)
> Against? (3 against)
> 
> Brian - Additions to PIDF - prefix draft - 2 additions to handle prefix
> in
> civic addressing.  Can we take this on as a wg item.  pidf-interior -
> we
> can't support a lot of interior spaces.  This works in more cases.
> James -
> no registry leads to interoperability problems.  Ted - there is no
> standard
> for interior spaces.  Richard: Aren't these drafts at odds with each
> other?
> 
> Hum:
> 
> Should we do prefix??  (14-15 hands)
> Opposed?  (none)
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]