Re: [Tzdist-bis] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate-03.txt

Hi,

Thanks for posting that new version. Regarding the open issue on privacy, I
believe the current specification may not take the most appropriated
approach. More specifically, the client can only request tzid based on gps
coordinates which is very intrusive as it specifies the very precise
location of the device. Of course the device may not always be the center,
but that seems likely to happen. In most of the cases gps provides too much
information to the server and the client should probably be able to provide
location information with a higher granularity. Typically, a client
providing the city should be sufficient for most cases.

The [geopriv] WG has defined protocols for a device to retrieve location
information as well as to communicate the location object. It might be wise
to re-use these LO [RFC4119]. While LO seems a bit more complex than
providing gps coordinates, using LO provides a better way to integrate the
geopriv architecture [RFC6280] and associated developments. This could
provide among others the following benefits:
* better privacy
* extends the protocol location information to those currently used.
Coordinate is one type of location but civic information could alos be used.
* extends the protocol to the various ways used to retrieve localisation
information. Location Configuration enables to retrieve information from
Location Information Servers, so the device does not necessarily needs to
get its gps coordinates.

My understanding is that the Location Server on the mobile is responsible
to implement the Privacy Rules of the Target and communicate LO to the
Location Receipient ( our tzid Server). The privacy consideration would
mosty focused on the definition of the rules.

RFC6280 section 6.1.  "Minimal Scenario" seems close to what we want to
achieve. Using POST may also be more appropriated.

Yours,
Daniel

[goepriv] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/documents/

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:37 PM Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate-03.txt
> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 13:36:36 -0800
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmailteam.com> <murch@fastmailteam.com>,
> Kenneth Murchison <murch@fastmailteam.com> <murch@fastmailteam.com>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate-03.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Kenneth Murchison and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate
> Revision: 03
> Title: The Time Zone Data Distribution Service (TZDIST) Geolocate Extension
> Document date: 2018-11-09
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 9
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate-03.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate/
> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate-03
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate
> Diff:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-murchison-tzdist-geolocate-03
>
> Abstract:
> This document defines an extension to the Time Zone Data Distribution
> Service (RFC 7808) to allow a mobile device to retrieve the time
> zones associated with a geographic location as specified by a 'geo'
> URI (RFC 5870).
>
> Open Issues
>
> o Determine which, if any, GEOPRIV requirements we need to follow
> and how they impact Security/Privacy considerations.
>
> o Need a new field(s) in the response to indicate which time zone(s)
> contain the point location vs those which are nearby (intersect
> the radius of uncertainty).
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tzdist-bis mailing list
> Tzdist-bis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist-bis
>