RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

IMHO we have had quite a bit of discussion on terminology,
scenarios and requirements. We tried to reflect those
discussions in the drafts that Mehmet, Kenji and I have
prepared. They will be announced shortly, but for your convenience,
and to have more discussion before Minneapolis we have them made
available at:

http://www.epic.roke.co.uk/epic/draft-cuellar-geopriv-reqs-01.txt
and
http://www.epic.roke.co.uk/epic/draft-cuellar-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt

Those are a new version of the requirements draft,
and a new scenarios draft. We are in close discussion with
John Morris to merge our viewpoints, and we hope to
prepare a common draft before or during the IETF-53.

As much as we could, we have left the scope of the
drafts to what we think is a bear minimum, but if there are
any concrete suggestions we can restrict the scope even more.

IMHO much of the discussion is difficult because there is no clear
consensus on what is on the scope of the WG. Is authentication of
policies in the scope? Are policies opaque? Is authentication of
requestors and responders in our scope? Is location data opaque?
Is a convenient abstraction of location data and transformations
in the scope? Is identity management (say, pseudonyms) in the scope?
Or is authentication based on public identities? There are many drafts
around and they already express different standpoints of a discussion.

I think that a WG meeting is actually necessary, and
I would expect a WG session to increase the discussion
(as actually it was also the case at SLC).

I would like to meet in Minneapolis with anyone interested in
making progress in this discussion or collaborating on drafts.

Best regards,

Jorge
Received on Wed Mar 6 10:22:31 2002