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.
>
>
>