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

Apologies if you receive this message twice. I sent it out two days
ago and never got the posting back through the list, and the message
has not yet appeared in the archives. John

At 10:07 AM -0500 3/11/02, John Morris wrote:
>My ftp server appears to be hiccuping. You can also get to the
>revised draft at
>
> http://www.cdt.org/standards/draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-01.txt
>
>John
>
>At 10:55 AM -0500 3/8/02, John Morris wrote:
>>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
>>--------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
John B. Morris, Jr.
Director, Internet Standards, Technology
    & Policy Project
Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 637-9800
(202) 637-0968 fax
jmorris@cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org
----------------------------------------
Received on Wed Mar 13 16:09:08 2002