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

["Carl Reed" <[e-mail]>]

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