Re: [Unwanted-trackers] Draft charter for unwanted tracking BoF meeting @ IETF 117

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brent Ledvina <bledvina=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Thursday 7/27 in the AM. We plan to discuss if we want to form a new WG
    > in support of this effort. To support this, we’ve thrown together a
    > draft charter which is available on GitHub:
    > https://github.com/bdetwiler/draft-detecting-unwanted-location-trackers/tree/main/charter

Thank you.
I am not privy to whatever horse-trading resulted in IETF being the place to
do this work.  I don't fundamentally object to this, but I think that the
wider community might need a bit more convincing.
TEEP, CELLAR, MLCODEC, ... have had to make similiar arguments.

In particular we have a BTLE protocol which does not fundamentally involve
any IP transport *itself*.
The charter does not seem to include any over the Internet interactions
whereby the manufacturer of the tracker-accessor and the tracking detecting
device communicate.  If that were included, then there would be no argument
abother whether the IETF is the right place.

The charter doesn't have good names for the various entities involved: maybe
some of those names should jump into the charter.

> Since most of the existing tracking accessories use Bluetooth, the DULT WG
> will coordinate as needed with the IETF 6lo WG and Bluetooth SIG.

I don't think that 6lo WG will have any special knowledge.
While 6lo has done IPv6 over BTLE Mesh, and there a BTLE experts who wrote
those document, as a whole, I don't think 6lo WG will have anything useful to
say.
An explanation of why this isn't occuring at the Bluetooth SIG would good, as
well as having some clear statement that we aren't stepping on their toes.



--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide