Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Fri, 11 September 2015 00:01 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 EC5F31B4055 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 JmbMrLraQspP for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66B241B3F61 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.107]) by resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Fc1W1r0052Ka2Q501c1W44; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:01:30 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Fc1U1r0013Ge9ey01c1Ufa; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:01:30 +0000
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, dispatch@ietf.org, geopriv mailing list <geopriv@ietf.org>
References: <B1DACD22-B712-42A1-A71D-1415E6F3BEAB@cooperw.in>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <55F219D6.2090208@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:01:26 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B1DACD22-B712-42A1-A71D-1415E6F3BEAB@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1441929690; bh=nYboB3nUKCUS0m4eZWnM4SHbnvYiAb2MMFYD+ZDG4Uo=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=Ef2RXEaNvZfkud+jylNkcWLph00ZGIN9WLKD116RrdQn9ENO+inKgApTAkFqZm464 z6LE32FURrUFWu5tEbW/AJ+kBWzhBQFdqLsVVdkkRmN4Bsme+CGgFV6zms0HM6AbHZ uXmtAwS7AUMNMI7hf0ZB0g5sM9W70gaSPcRDZrQMyIZxFdUR1wgO5BYZRdaw6bXnMA U4wBqJBcB4RoRLBOtLOFsgufBoL6qPebtSc8+h6wgCh/hQ1iMhzguNqdc6glbzGnDy nFIZ5FXxmobf+N9KxOCcAh3+c0iu30mWUuYoItm4whK1o3ycyf9xc7a4QeL8rOjwWU Un77vKqxIYdhA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/FZqOn7b_l2aUpCz1dXsQgFrJVDI>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 08:57:18 -0700
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, 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 00:01:33 -0000
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. > > >
- [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geopriv] Updated geojson charter text Paul Kyzivat