Re: Terminology

Greetings Brian:

"Rosen, Brian" wrote:

> Henning suggested "owner" for the policy determining entity, so
> why don't we agree to that.
>
> I'd actually like a more descriptive term for the entity "carrying"
> the target than "user". Anyone got suggestions?

Target Broker, Location Broker (this one may sound similar to Location
Provider)

regards,

Bobby Sardana.
sardana@obsoft.com

>
>
> Henning, like you, did not like "client' or "server". He suggested
> "location provider" and "location seeker". I have no problem with
> those choices.
>
> I don't yet appreciate the difference betweeen an involuntary
> and a voluntary provider. Please give me some hint of why
> differentiating might affect the design of the object, the protocol
> or the privacy considerations. It seems to me that voluntary
> or involuntary, you treat the data the same way.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Morris
> To: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
> Sent: 12/11/01 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Terminology
>
> Brian,
>
> I strongly agree that we should start with definitions and terminology,
> and
> I include some comments and suggestions in line below. But first, three
>
> preliminary comments:
>
> 1. There are at least two places below where I suggest that we create
> two
> definitions where you suggest only single definitions. I expect that
> your
> reaction to at least one of my two suggestions is that my distinction is
>
> irrelevant. But I ask you to at least concede that the distinctions I
> am
> drawing are factually accurate. It may well be that two different
> categories of actors will in the final analysis be treated exactly the
> same
> (which is a conclusion that you suggested yesterday), but I think in our
>
> definitions we should still identify the different categories of actors
> and
> then later decide, if appropriate, to group two categories together.
>
> 2. I suggest a couple of new terms below. I do not care about the
> precise
> words I have suggested, only about the conceptual categories. So if
> anyone
> has better words to describe the relevant categories, please offer them
> up.
>
> 3. My comments below focus on your suggested definitions, without
> addressing whether the WG wants or needs to have a definition of
> "location"
> or types of location. We can discuss that in a later e-mail.
>
> On to my comments:
>
> At 12:43 PM 12/11/01 -0500, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> >I'd like to start a discussion of terminology.
> >
> >I think we all agree on the term "target"; it's the device
> >that has a location.
>
> Fine.
>
> >We usually use the term "user", in two contexts. One is that
> >the target is usually described as associated with the user.
> >We really want the location of the user, but until we get
> >implanted with GPS receivers and radios, we have targets
> >that are separate from the user. The other context we
> >use "user" is that the user is the source of the privacy
> >concern. Ultimately, it is the user that grants rights to
> >some other entity to learn the location of the target.
>
> I would split this into two, along the lines of:
> "user" is the person (if any) who is directly associated with the
> target
> device (by carrying the device, or driving it, etc.)
> "owner" is the person or entity (if different from the user) who is
> the
> appropriate person/entity to set privacy rules
> To be clear, in some cases there may be no user at all -- an owner
> simply
> wants to locate the target device, and the device is not a proxy for
> person.
> Also to be clear, in many cases the user and owner may be one and the
> same. But clearly there will be scenarios in which the user and owner
> are
> not the same. In the final analysis, it is possible that this
> distinction
> may not be all that relevant, but I for one cannot prejudge that at this
> point.
>
> > >From there, we tend to fall apart on generally accepted
> >terminology. I'd like to propose that we use the policy
> >terms like 'Policy Determination Point' and 'Policy
> >Enforcement Point' which have accepted meanings when we
> >discuss the application of the users policy on the
> >location dissemination. Is that acceptable?
>
> Personally, I do not yet clearly understand how you would define those
> two
> terms. I can imagine their definition, and I think that I could get on
> board with some definition, but can you spell out two separate
> definitions?
>
> >Finally, I'd like to take a stab at convincing you that
> >there are only two other entities (nouns) in this process.
> >I think many have in mind that there are several other entities,
> >but in my mind, there are only two.
> >
> >A Server is an entity that knows the location of a target.
> >A Client is an entity that wants to find out the location
> >of a target.
> >
> >See, wasn't that easy?
>
> Too easy, in my view!
>
> First, I agree with you that we may be able conflate many potential
> categories of actor into a single term like "server." So I accept your
> effort to simplify. I am not happy with "server" or "client" because
> they
> mean too many things already, but this concern is fairly minor.
>
> More importantly, let's come back to the debate you and I had yesterday
> in
> the WG about whether my use of the term "carrier" was accurate and/or
> relevant. You quickly convinced me that the word "carrier" is wrong,
> but I
> persist in thinking that there is a potentially relevant distinction
> here. Let me reformulate my distinction as follows (and please, I hope
> someone comes up with better words than I have here):
>
> an "involuntary location processor" is an entity (like, e.g., a wireless
>
> carrier or a dial-up ISP) that unavoidably learns or can learn the
> location
> of the target, simply as a function of the role the entity plays in the
> target's communications capability. Thus, unless a cell phone user
> simply
> decided never to turn on the device, there is likely nothing the user or
>
> owner can do to stop the wireless carrier from learning the
> location. (Indeed, U.S. E911 laws may make this situation obligatory
> for
> the U.S.).
>
> a "voluntary location processor" is an entity that (a) receives the
> target's location with the consent of the owner and (b) in most cases
> takes
> some action with the information (e.g., serves it, translates it, stores
>
> it, obfuscates it, returns other info to the target based on it).
>
> Now, I admit that ILPs and VLPs may well in the end be treated exactly
> alike, and so you may be correct in suggesting that the distinction is
> irrelevant. But again, I for one doubt that the distinction will be
> irrelevant, and I certainly cannot at this point in the analysis say
> that
> the ILP should not receive special attention. Let's identify two
> definitions and decide to conflate them later, if appropriate.
>
> Now, to round out my suggested terminology, I probably would substitute
> something like "ultimate location recipient" instead of "client," but I
> do
> not think this is critical. The key, in my mind, is that the recipient
> is
> the last entity to receive the location information, and this recipient
> may
> well not need to know the full details of the owner's privacy rules.
>
> >Now, let's look at scenarios. Please remember that these
> >are logical functions, and a physical device can have
> >multiple functions implemented in it.
>
> I agree that we should look at scenarios very soon, but I do not want to
>
> delay my thoughts above until I can get more time to comments on your
> scenarios. Also, reaching tentative consensus on the terminology is
> probably a good first step.
>
> John
>
> ----------------------------------------
> John B. Morris, Jr.
> Director, Internet Standards, Technology
> & Policy Project
> Center for Democracy and Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> (202) 637-9800
> (202) 637-0968 fax
> jmorris@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> ----------------------------------------
Received on Wed Dec 12 02:12:16 2001