Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>
>>
>>
>