RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

At 08:45 AM 3/6/2002 -0700, Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew) wrote:

Snip>
>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?

Don't get me started on comparisons.... grrrrrrrrr!!

>
>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?

I have the same conflict with iptel, so the next slot is great with me.

>
>--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
>

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
Richardson, TX 75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com
Received on Wed Mar 6 12:54:04 2002