Re: [its] Narrowing the scope of the Internet-wide Geornetworking activities

[Mike Kallas <[e-mail]>]

Point captured in Doc !


________________________________
 From: Carl Reed <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [its] Narrowing the scope of the Internet-wide Geornetworking activities
 


 
Perhaps check out an OGC standard called GeoXACML. This is a “geo” 
extension to XACML. The geo extension is based on ISO 19107 Spatial Schema. 
19107 defines spatial geometry types. 19107 is also used in OGC Simple Features 
(implemented in every commercial and open source database), SQL/MM, the OGC 
Geography Markup Language (GML, and GeoJSON. The geodetic location object 
referenced in PIDF-LO (and other IETF RFCs) is defined using a GML application 
schema, which is based on 19107.
 
So, regardless if the group decides to use an existing encoding for 
geographic area, I would strongly encourage the use of the geometry model 
defined in 19107. That way, mapping from one instance to another is greatly 
facilitated. 
 
Regards

Carl Reed
CTO
OGC
  
From: [e-mail] 
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 10:19 AM
To: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] 
Subject: Re: [its] Narrowing the scope of the Internet-wide 
Geornetworking activities
  Hi Mike,
 
Thanks for the comment!
The issues that you mentioned regarding security and definition of the 
geographic area are issues that will of course be in the scope of the working 
group.
 
Best regards,
Georgios
 
________________________________
 
Van: Mike Kallas [[e-mail]]
Verzonden: donderdag 7 november 2013 17:33
To: Karagiannis, G. (EWI); 
[e-mail]
Onderwerp: Re: [its] Narrowing the scope of the 
Internet-wide Geornetworking activities


i agree that "how the Access Routers and/or the 
Gateways dsitribute the packets" should be out f scope, but i am not sure that 
the 2 point you mentioned in the proposed scope are enough. for example for 
example any communication of this type would not be in response to a direct 
request which makes security and privacy a big issue to be handled. Also a 
single access router would not necessarily cover the desired geographic are. 
also how do you define the geographic area? is it a point and a radius, how do 
you handle overlap? that is why i have been pushing for this iterative approach, 
because i dont think it is exactly this simple
 

________________________________
 From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] 
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 3:56 
AM
Subject: [its] Narrowing the 
scope of the Internet-wide Geornetworking activities

 
   
Hi all,
 
Below you can find a proposal where I try to narrow signifficantly the 
scope of the Internet-wide Geonetworking activities:
 
The Internet-wide Geonetworking WG will focus on:
 
o) Extend DNS mechanisms and protocols 
to support mapping, in a bidirectional way, destination geographical areas into 
IP addresses (or URIs) of Access Routers and/or Gateways, which are able to 
broadcast or multicast packets to to the nodes located in these destination 
geographical areas.
 
o) Design a protocol that carries 
destination area information from a source node to the Access Routers and/or 
Gateways, which are able to broadcast or multicast packets from this source to 
the nodes located in these destination geographical areas.
 
 
Note that the way (mecahnisms or protocols) of how 
the Access Routers and/or the Gateways dsitribute the packets (broadcast or 
multicast) is out of the scope of this WG. This is because several existing 
mechanisms can be used for this purpose. E.g., MANET, ETSI ITS IPv6 
geonetworking, etc.
 
Comments are welcome!
 
Best regards,
Georgios
 
 
________________________________
 
Van: Karagiannis, G. (EWI)
Verzonden: donderdag 7 november 2013 2:21
To: Alexandru Petrescu; 
[e-mail]
Onderwerp: RE: [its] What happened at the BoF 
'geonet'


Hi all,
 
Please note that we will need to organize a new BOF on Interent-wide 
Geonetworking.
 
Before this BOF will take place we will need to have:

(1) a focussed problem scope, with an updated problem statement 
draft
 
(2) the answers to the questions listed in the below email:
o What are the scaling points?
o What components need to be 
involved?
o What are the security and privacy considerations?
o What 
existing work is applicable and what existing work is not
applicable?
o 
What problems we do NOT want to solve? Most importantly, of course,
who will 
implement and who will deploy?

(3) a charter
 
Best regards,
Georgios
 
 

________________________________
 
Van: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] namens 
Alexandru Petrescu [[e-mail]]
Verzonden: donderdag 
7 november 2013 1:42
To: [e-mail]
Onderwerp: [its] What 
happened at the BoF 'geonet'

Hello ITSers,

The BoF went well, there 
were at least 100 people attending; many people
were interested to contribute 
and work on Internet-wide generic issues
(20 attendees).

However, the 
Internet-wide geonetworking scope as presented in the
problem statement draft 
is too wide for the moment and we have to narrow
it.  This will need 
additional work, and an update of the problem
statement draft.

In 
particular, thanks to our IAB Advisor Eliot Lear - the following
issues 
should guide our progress:
o What are the scaling points?
o What 
components need to be involved?
o What are the security and privacy 
considerations?
o What existing work is applicable and what existing work is 
not
   applicable?
o What problems we do NOT want to 
solve?  Most importantly, of course,
   who will implement and 
who will deploy?

Goergios and 
Alex
_______________________________________________
its mailing 
list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________
its 
mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its



________________________________
 _______________________________________________
its mailing 
list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its