Re: FW: Potential Location Summit

> ... We
> believe (though if we are wrong, please set me straight) that this is
> the only active group in IETF dealing with location.

Well, there's PILC, where pipe properties tend (strongly) to suggest
properties not strictly inferable from a link-state or distance-vector
(network topology) knowledge-base. After that there's the L2 Triggers
(perenial) activity, I think we're a proto-BoF today. Then there is
manet, where location is reasonably interesting, if relative. It wouldn't
hurt to ask the co-chairs of the mobile-ip wg also.

Oddly enough, a working group I contribute to is concerned with the
controlling jurisdiction and hence data protection regime applicable
to records of some transjurisdictional shared store.

> LIF, OGC, WAP Forum, OMA, 3GPP and GSMA have lots of informal and formal
> connections that ensure, or attempt to ensure, that we come up with
> harmonious standards and reduce the overall workload and produce better
> standards. We'd like to have at least an informal communication path
> with IETF Geopriv. This will likely benefit IETF Geopriv, even if the
> IETF Geopriv attendee's only function is to observe.

Try writing I-Ds, this is the usual means of communication.

> So in other words, we'd like someone who can fairly represent the work
> of people in the group, has a good handle on what the group's likely
> accomplishments might be, and can communicate back to IETF Geopriv about
> how that location summit proceeded. We can probably accommodate
> multiple attendees from IETF Geopriv.

IMO, only your 3rd condition is likely to be satisfied. YMMV.

> Anyway, we just want to get a sense whether you'd support it, attend,
> etc.

Support. How?
Attend. Is it open to "the public"?

Possessed of neither compass nor chronometer, and befuddled by post-modernism,
Eric
Received on Fri Jun 7 16:22:27 2002