Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 11 September 2015 09:53 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 24F331A0369; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ByrhiHmtHpSh; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7971B2DB2; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081FBBE2F; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:53:09 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VdLD3yLKCu4V; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:53:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.20.219]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D194CBDF9; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:53:06 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1441965187; bh=jASrq7JlB9hUKQKcv0KSOlCZ1048gzm6SQBWt2A2EKg=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oNeNOQyf3wgGT6c6fe8ce0tLkVmNLfAB70QCrUxvaG/pmb4+l8dpP6UNRjUsLkeSG fIKVTmziw87p+ql0wVkOK5/GaEkKUyAgrX6Y2MV9zjOvgs8yA9vEH83ZhM+tpvqqwm jsO+A+MlsROpTZ6LYAGVp7hmMJk5jYjdQG9Pi4ac=
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, dispatch@ietf.org, geopriv mailing list <geopriv@ietf.org>
References: <B1DACD22-B712-42A1-A71D-1415E6F3BEAB@cooperw.in> <55F219D6.2090208@alum.mit.edu>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <55F2A480.6080508@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:53:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55F219D6.2090208@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/9gYq9uPB6zvC43mphCFNfgpcmHQ>
Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.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 09:53:13 -0000

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.
>>
>>
>>
>