Re: Scope of GeoPriv

Nicholas,

The charter mentions security and formatting issues, which I think are
central to the WG and are most appropriately discussed here for location
info trnasmitted over IP. On the security side, we have to define what
level of authentication/authorization would be appropriate before
transmitting location information. On the formatting side, we'll have to
select a method for transporting the data, and the charter mentions SIP.
I don't think it's outside the scope of this group to work with SIP folks
to define how the transport might be done, and the charter even mentions
an example API on how to do this.

I believe you are right to question this group's role in determining
privacy implications. Taking a privacy stance should be outside this
group's scope. Some public comments on the P3P web site explain why P3P
is policy-neutral, not the least of which is different laws on privacy in
different countries. We too should take a policy-neutral stance, but at
the same time support existing privacy infrastructures such as P3P.

Regards,
John

ps- the WAP links you mentioned on location privacy were down. Any clues
as to why?

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:16:43AM +0000, Nicholas Wood wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking over the latest documents, and I was just wondering
> about the scope and purpose of this group in relation to other similar
> initiatives. For example, the WAP forum has published a set of generic
> specifications for requesting and transporting location information (WAP
> 256, 257 and 258, see http://www.wapforum.org/what/review.htm), the W3C has
> published the P3P specification for generic privacy policies
> (http://www.w3.org/P3P/) and so on.
>
> Thanks,
> Nicholas
>
>

-- 
John WELLS
Tel: 1 540 231 8347
Virginia Tech Mobile Networking Lab (2015 Torgersen Hall)
PGP Public key: http://bagpipe.irean.vt.edu/~wells/pgpkey.txt