RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

Andrew,

I would 100% prefer a WG meeting than a BOF.
(Or both, if they have clearly separated charters.)

Randall, is your decision not to have a meeting at IETF-53
definitive??

It was never my intention to suggest that the WG charter is
wrong. It is not just too clear what the scope of the
requirements is. And when we start discussing about something,
then we hear: well, this may be out of our scope!

> 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?

I think we *need* a discussion to clear those and similar points.
Well, and if everything is opaque and authentication is out of scope,
I do not understand what we are talking about.

In other words, we have not consensus on what the
requirements are. That is OK, this *is* the purpose of the WG.
And I do think that we may do much sensible work with the given charter.
I would suggest to take the draft:

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

as a basis for the discussion on what is not in our scope and what is.
(This draft will be in http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ shortly.
The scenarios draft is now there.)

There are people at 3GPP an LIF and elsewhere waiting for our input.
It is true that we will need something more precise for particular
location and presence services, but I think geopriv is a good place
to start. Let's do it!

Best regards,

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew) [mailto:zmolek@avaya.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:46 PM
To: Cuellar Jorge; Rosen, Brian; Randall Gellens; James M. Polk; Kenji
Takahashi; John Morris
Cc: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
Subject: 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 14:18:23 2002