RE: E911 and appliances

So you think that geopriv must define the user identity
of the consumer of location information?

I have reviewed the charter. It does not say anything about
defining user identification.

Each protocol that uses this object will have a notion of
"user". We have to respect that notion, and we definitely
can't redefine it, or even overlay our own definition.

It's completely out of hand to define the object as having
a user identifier in it; the form and specification requirements
of such an identifier presupposes more than we can assume.
It will be, in almost every case, duplicative of other information
the protocols already supply.

Likewise, we can't specify anything about the actual authentication
mechanism. You can say it has to have one, but that might range
from a username/password to a two factor token, to a smoke signal;
If the device has an appropriate authentication mechanism (appropriate
to its circumstances), then it ought to be able to transfer location
information.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 4:42 PM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: 'Adam Shostack'; 'Christopher Sipes'; andrew@daviel.org;
> geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org; hgs@cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: RE: E911 and appliances
>
>
> > Write that down in the security considerations section.
> > This group needs to be focused on location.
>
> this is not true. please review the charter. this wg is
> specifically about
> privacy and security.
>
> randy
>
Received on Mon Aug 20 17:22:38 2001