Re: [Geopriv] HUM: Adopt draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-10

Thanks Marc,

I think that the change in terminology will help make the statement we are trying to make much clearer, so this is a good suggestion.

I will shortly raise an issue against the draft in the tracker and will follow up with proposed text.

I'll respectfully oppose the name change, in part for James' reasons, but also because it implies greater scope than the document actually covers.  The current title is a little cumbersome, but it is more correct.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Marc Linsner
> Sent: Friday, 4 September 2009 12:22 AM
> To: Richard Barnes; 'GEOPRIV'
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] HUM: Adopt draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-
> identity-extensions-10
> 
> This draft has certainly made changes for the better, IMO.
> 
> One of my major objections to previous versions of this idea centers
> around
> the security and privacy aspects of LCP mechanisms vs. RuleMaker
> mechanisms.
> I think this version of the draft makes headway in comparing the
> semantics
> around each of these mechanisms.  But I think more changes are in order
> and
> would help.
> 
> The semantics of LCP we've worked under calls for the protection of LCI
> to
> take place at the communication protocol level.  All of the accepted
> mechanisms to date do such.  Once you go past the communication
> protocol
> security model, you now have policy and backend algorithms performing
> security checks, i.e. verifying the requester is the target (or
> authorized
> to receive the target's location).  This is the 'RuleMaker' model of
> security.
> 
> It's fine to explain the semantics of LCP security within this
> document, but
> that should be done for comparison the to RuleMaker model only.
> 
> I think the document needs to clearly state that this is NOT a
> mechanism for
> LCP even though a target might use this mechanism to discover it's own
> location.  Hence, this mechanism can support LCP-like use cases with
> the
> additional baggage of RuleMaker security semantics.
> 
> In additions to the above changes, I think the document title should
> change
> to 'Location Discovery by Third Parties' as this is the major use case,
> especially from a security pov.
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/2/09 8:51 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
> 
> > This is a call for consensus to adopt the HELD identity extension
> > document (draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-10) as
> a
> > GEOPRIV work item.  At IETF 71, there was consensus in the room to
> adopt
> > this draft, and IETF 75, there was continued interest in the topic.
> > This call is to confirm that consensus.
> >
> > Given the prior agreement on this question, this is an abbreviated
> > consensus call.  Please send your response to the list no later than
> > Friday, 4 September, 2009.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Richard
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> 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]