Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV minutes from IETF 75
Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> Wed, 12 August 2009 17:29 UTC
Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
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 985863A6AFC for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.989, 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 pOKIEYFad3sz for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx11.bbn.com (mx11.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D36D3A6826 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.254.188] (helo=col-rbarnes-l1.local) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1MbGec-00044o-DK; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:26:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4A82FB3F.5080405@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:26:23 -0400
From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: creed@opengeospatial.org
References: <4A6EB80D.9010400@bbn.com> <55239.75.71.192.203.1249400879.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
In-Reply-To: <55239.75.71.192.203.1249400879.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:29:54 -0000
Carl, Thanks for the pointer. In order to meet IEEE's request, we may have to move forward with something more ad-hoc, but in the long term, it will probably make sense to align on a single standard for interior location. --Richard creed@opengeospatial.org wrote: > 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