Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75
creed@opengeospatial.org Tue, 04 August 2009 15:48 UTC
Return-Path: <creed@opengeospatial.org>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B7828C462 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L92ByRrXmt96 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (mail.opengeospatial.org [66.244.86.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B785628C3AA for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.opengeospatial.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n74FlxF0030518; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:47:59 -0400
Received: from 75.71.192.203 (SquirrelMail authenticated user creed) by mail.opengeospatial.org with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:47:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <55239.75.71.192.203.1249400879.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A6EB80D.9010400@bbn.com>
References: <4A6EB80D.9010400@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:47:59 -0400
From: creed@opengeospatial.org
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/9651/Tue Aug 4 10:58:50 2009 on mail.opengeospatial.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: 'GEOPRIV' <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:48:07 -0000
Richard - Thanks for the excellent meeting notes. On item 7, perhaps related, there is a new collaboration about to begin titled "Open Floor Plan". Essentially, this collaboration is between multiple standards organizations and interested individuals that is focused on defining a lightweight interchange and encoding for floor plans. The driving use cases are emergency services and in building navigation. Currently, the standards organizations are the OGC, NIBS/buildingSMART, and OASIS. The "new" model would actually be a limited profile of an existing standard from the international building industry (I believe). Regards Carl > Draft minutes for the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 74 are below. Please send > comments to the list no later than Friday, 7 Aug 2009. > --Richard > > > ---------- > Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF75 > > Summary (prepared by Richard Barnes): > > 1. Agenda Bash > Brian Rosen requested 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss > his drafts on extensions to the PIDF-LO civic address elements. James > Polk volunteered 10 minutes of his time for dhcp-lbyr-uri-option to > extend discussion of geopriv-arch. > > 2. Geolocation URI > draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri > Alex Mayrhofer presented a brief update on the WG draft describing a URI > scheme for geolocation. The current version adds a CRS parameter, and > the next will address comments from the URI-Review mailing list. > > 3. Location Filters > draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters > Brian Rosen presented a brief update on the WG draft describing a filter > language for location updates. The current draft is a significant > update from prior versions, basing the filters on the general RFC 4661 > filter syntax. > > > 4. GEOPRIV Architecture > draft-ietf-geopriv-arch > Alissa Cooper presented an update on the WG draft describing an overall > privacy architecture for GEOPRIV. The developemnt of the current > version was focused on refining terminology, in particular the meaning > of the term "LIS"; discussion of that topic continued in the meeting, > with no clear resolution. > > 5. Location URIs in DHCP > draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option > James Polk presented an update on the WG draft describing a mechanism > for carrying location URIs in DHCP. Hannes Tschofenig submitted an > extensive review of the current version of the document, and James is > still working through these comments. James agreed to send a summary of > the open issues in the draft to the list. Several participants said > that the current prohibition against the use of HTTP URIs should be > modified to permit at least some classes of HTTP URIs. > > > 6. Updates to DHCP Geodetic Location (RFC 3825bis) > draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis > Bernard Aboba presented an update on the WG draft that makes a series of > udpates to address errors and unclear points in RFC 3825. Individual > changes are being tracked using the issue tracker on tools.ietf.org, and > most are awaiting text from their assigned authors. > > 7. IEEE Liaison > Dorothy Stanley, chair of IEEE 802.11 TGv, presented a liaison statement > from 802.11 to GEOPRIV requesting that GEOPRIV develop a binary encoding > for the GML shapes that are available in XML, mainly for use in interior > location scenarios. Some participants addressed doubts as to the > utility of such a translation, but others supported working on this > topic. Discussion will continue on how to respond to this request. > > 8. HELD Extensions > draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-deref > draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions > draft-thomson-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery > draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements > Martin Thomson led a discussion on a series of proposed HELD extensions. > He gave a brief description of each document, with some group > discussion after each description. Privacy concerns continue to be a > significant concern for the HELD Identity extension, and there is > continuing debate over the need for special mechanisms for residential > gateways. Shows of hands indicated varying degrees of support for these > drafts, but rough consensus to work on all four. Discussion on how to > sequence these drafts will continue. > > 9. PIDF-LO Civic Address Extensions > draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior > draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix > Brian Rosen introduced two drafts that extend the PIDF-LO civic address > structrure to include (1) "prefix" elements that match current "suffix" > elements, and (2) a generic element "INT" to represent interior location > elements. The major issue with the INT element right now is whether to > register values for it: Some view registration as necessary to avoid > ambiguity, while others note that the lack of standards for building > models could cause a lot of noise in the registry. A show of hands > indicated strong support for working on the -prefix draft; discussion > will continue on the -pidf-interior draft. > > > > Raw notes from Marc Linsner follow: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Geopriv Notes > > Agenda Bash: brian wants to discuss INT > James wants lbyr longer > > status update: charter updated; W3C GeoLocation last call deadline this > Friday; > > Lightning Round: > > Alex - GeoURI - discussion around CRS - consensus seems to be that WGS84 > should be default, but don't preclude other CRS, solution in the current > draft. Is a URI parameter registry needed? What about privacy policies? > > Brian - loc-filters - 05 released this morning; now based on RFC4661; > several changes - read the slides/text! Issue: Normal Reference to > -dynamic > which is experimental > > Alissa - Geo-arch: not trying to dramatically change from existing Geopriv > work or implementations. Describe what a 'LIS' means; James - the current > definition of LIS seems to fit the HELD arch but no necessarily the DHCP > architecture. Brian - there is current usage of LIS includes dereference. > Marc - the term LIS is still muddy. Jon - What's wrong with the current > text? - Brian - like I just said, 'own location' does not cover > dereferencing. Ray - ??? > > James Polk - lbyr uri - chose the auth. security model; rewrote the intro; > addressed Ted's concern; Hannes is addressing things from the 00 draft 2+ > years ago. Some of Hannes' comments were good. Keith: this is a wg > draft? > You are not the arbitrator of the text, the wg is. Hannes is commenting > on > the jabber...(read the jabber). Jon: I'm lazy, I read the doc for the > first > time today. I am curious why only SIP, SIPS, PRES uri? Why not HTTP > uris. > James: Jon you agreed to this earlier. Ted: you need structure around the > URIs, hence this restriction. We need to work on this. Jon, we need HTTP > uri support. Ted: if we had support for a HELD uri would that satisfy your > concern. Brian: I want to support HELD uris James: this needs to be run > by > Lisa. Ted: I'll take the task to run this by Lisa. Cullen: I agree Ted, > we'll work this out. > > Bernard - rfc3825bis - started with 3825; we have an issue tracker; we > will > make changes based on list discussion and consensus. Issue 9 & 10 closed; > Issue 1 resolved; Issue 2 needs list discussion; Issue 5 has been sent to > the list; Issue .... (read slides) Keith: does the assignee have more > authority? Bernard, all text will be discussed on the list. Martin: I > have > proposals...I'm don't have motivation. Richard: please copy/cut paste > from > your other draft. > > Dorothy Stanley - IEEE liaison - chair 802.11tgv and liaison to IETF - > summarize the letter sent last week. (read slides) covered background of > 802.11 location work. IEEE is requesting the IETF to extend the BINARY > representation of the location objects to include shapes, etc. Cullen - > verify the dates....wg doc. Brian questioned the usefulness. Martin > supported Brian. Marc - IEEE is asking for xml to tlv mapping, not > critque > of their application. Ted - decide to do the work, then have the > application discussion Hannes - 3GPP has already done this work. Dorothy - > we chose to come to IETF first. Gabor - Nobody has this defined, not in > 3GPP > > Martin Thomson - HELD extensions - 4 drafts - deref, identity extensions, > res-gw-lis-discovery, held measurements. Derefernce - do people think > this > is useful/necessary? Identity - (read slides) - Marc: Brian: I don't > see > anything in the doc about a 3rd party using IP address to ask for > someone's > location. Cullen: I believe we agreed to not do the 'authorized third > parties'. (missed some) Ted: I agree with Marc...you are changing the > rules around LCP. The draft needs to explain why/how we are changing the > LCP rules before becoming a wg draft. Martin: the doc talks about the > need > for authorization. Jon: We need to solve this problem and need to > prioritize this as the first problem. Bernard: Maybe break off the third > party issue and deal with it separately. Lis Discovery: a large group of > home gw devices don't support this. Cullen: it's too strong a statement, > some devices do support. (Ray Bellis): this overloads option 15 and use > of > it. Cullen: if we have a solution that is supported on some of the > existing, we need to use it. Ray Bellis: this draft will work with no > work > in the home gateway. Measurements: necessary for cooperative location > determination. Brian: I think this is the least interesting of the 4 > Marc: > please characterize measurements and identity extensions. Ray Bellis: In > the UK, we need identity and res-gw-discovery > > Richard: Any more comments on the prioritization?? Identity Extensions > then > HomeGw LIS Discovery > > Brian: Concerns over putting deref off for another year. > > Jabber room: all 4 are equally important > > HUMS: > Those in support of the group working on Deref: (no hums) > Those no in support of the group working on Deref: (no hums) > > Should the wg work on a deref for HELD: (little hums) > (never asked for the opposite) > > Should geopriv address the problems of Identity? (17 hands raised) > Against (1 hand raised) > > Gateway discovery problem, in favor (9 hands raised) > Against? (1 hand raised) > > Measurements, (8 hands raised) > Against? (3 against) > > Brian - Additions to PIDF - prefix draft - 2 additions to handle prefix in > civic addressing. Can we take this on as a wg item. pidf-interior - we > can't support a lot of interior spaces. This works in more cases. James > - > no registry leads to interoperability problems. Ted - there is no > standard > for interior spaces. Richard: Aren't these drafts at odds with each > other? > > Hum: > > Should we do prefix?? (14-15 hands) > Opposed? (none) > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > Geopriv@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv >
- [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75 Richard Barnes
- Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75 Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75 James M. Polk
- Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75 creed
- Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75 Richard Barnes