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

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
>--------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Mar 13 16:14:24 2002