RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

Jorge-

I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding the scoping problem.
This may be a good reason to hold a BoF instead, as having a politically
correct charter is getting in the way of doing quality technical work.

IMHO, solving the privacy issue is infinitely easier when the target or
policy owner can apply the rules within an overall presence and
availability system that securely receives location information from
devices without privacy proscriptions on those feeds. Exposure of that
information to others only happens via the presence and availability
system controlled by the target or policy owner. [Note: I elaborate on
this notion in my ENUM service resolution pointer draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zmolek-enum-pointer-00.txt ]

But geopriv is not chartered to design a general purpose presence and
availability system. Rather, it attempts to force policy application all
the way down to the location protocol itself. Can you imagine what the
internet would be like if the same rationale were applied to echo
request and reply protocols, traceroute protocols, and other similar
tools?

Anyway, enough ranting. I'm 100% in support of a BoF. Given that iptel
was meeting at the same time as geopriv, may I suggest we try to
organize a meeting during the next group of sessions, Tuesday afternoon
1545-1645. What do you think?

--Andy Zmolek
    Technology & Standards Engineer
      CTO Standards
        Avaya Inc.

            zmolek@avaya.com
              +1 720 444 4001

-----Original Message-----
From: Cuellar Jorge [mailto:Jorge.R.Cuellar@mchp.siemens.de]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:20 AM
To: Rosen, Brian; 'Randall Gellens'; 'James M. Polk'; 'Kenji Takahashi';
'John Morris'
Cc: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
Subject: 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 10:46:12 2002