Revised draft of draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-0x.txt

As I suggested in an earlier note, we had a last minute glitch and we
missed the internet-drafts deadline for submission of a revision of
drafts-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt.

We will of course submit it once i-d's open up again after
Minneapolis, but until then you can access the revised draft at

   ftp://ftp.cdtmail.org/pub/draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-01.txt

The revised draft incorporates three main changes/additions:

A. The draft adds a new "definitions" section which sets out
expressly some of the terms used in the draft. These definitions
approach those proposed by Jorge Cuellar. Although there are some
differences, they can likely be resolved and thus I think that Jorge
and we may end up advancing a single set of proposed definitions.

B. The grid of location "computation" scenarios has been modified
somewhat to respond to some (but not all) of Brian Rosen's concerns
about the concept of "carriers." Brian may well continue to believe
that our new term of "initial access provider" is irrelevant, but we
believe the distinction between initial and later service providers
is worth including.

C. The revised draft sets out a number of scenarios that go beyond
the initial computation scenario and illustrate the types of privacy
issues that are raised by location services.

I still hope we can have a formal WG meeting. If I were setting the
agenda, I would make it simple (at least simple in form, but not in
substance):

        1. Discussion of the scope of charter and WG
        2. "Final" (pending posting and discussion back on the list,
of course) discussion of definitions and terminology
        3. Set concrete plan to (a) finish on terminology, if
needed, (b) create a scenarios document, if there is WG consensus to
create one, and (c) create a requirements document.

If we cannot have a WG meeting, then I hope we will be able to
discuss these issues less formally. I've received only a couple of
off-list e-mails on possible times for a bof, so I do not have much
helpful to suggest.

  - perhaps we could meet for an hour right at 6pm/1800 on Tuesday?

  - Thursday 1300 - 1500 has been suggested...

  - and/or perhaps we could meet Friday morning at something like 7am or 9am?

My first choice, however, would be to have a WG meeting at the
currently scheduled time.

John Morris

--------------------------------------------------
John Morris // CDT // http://www.cdt.org/standards
--------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Mar 8 10:57:28 2002