RE: FW: Potential Location Summit

Regarding LIF, for LIF TS 101, go to www.locationforum.org, click on
"Public Area", then "Public Area" (OK, that's pretty bad usability
design) and then download TS 101 3.0.0 zip file.

Regarding OGC, I'll let Carl discuss their current status.

Regarding OMA, the lame-o press release flurry is what you can find
publically. I'm not going to speculate on its ultimate value, but it
seems to be an important group based on internal buzz.

I think arguments that these organizations are not as open as IETF are
reasonably correct--you have to pay to become a member, you relinquish
some intellectual property rights when you do so, and the internal
machinations of the specification process are opaque, not transparent as
in IETF. WAP Forum, 3GPP, 3GPP2, etc are similar, I suspect. There's a
role for both types of groups.

I realize now it's kind of crazy to ask IETF to be "represented" at such
a location summit--sort of like culture clash--but at least I asked.

I think these Group X vs. Group Y discussions are dominating the mailing
list, and probably for greatest effectiveness IETF Geopriv should get on
with its work.

Dan Greening, Ph.D. CEO, BigTribe Corporation
              330 Townsend Street, Suite 209, San Francisco, CA
94107-1662
              greening@bigtribe.com +1(415)995-7151 fax 995-7155

-----Original Message-----
From: John W Noerenberg II [mailto:jwn2@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:40 AM
To: Dan Greening
Cc: ietf-geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
Subject: RE: FW: Potential Location Summit

At 4:45 PM -0700 6/8/02, Dan Greening wrote:
>LIF and OGC standards are very compatible

When you are speaking of standards in the IETF, please adopt the
IETF's definitions. The IETF does not put the cart before the horse.
At best, what OGC have produced MIGHT be equivalent to something with
PROPOSED status. What is more likely, considering the methods
they've adopted, their contributions would be considered
INFORMATIONAL documents - which have no standing as something even
considered for standards track.

The OGC technical documents I was able to find discuss coordinate
representations and transforms. Perhaps someone familiar with the
OGC documents would be willing to bring them to the IETF's and
geopriv's attention. The geopriv WG might be able to use these
location models as part of the definition of a location object.

>LIF (Location Interoperability Forum) specifies carrier interfaces
>related to location, including position data, privacy, roaming. We
just
>released LIF TS 101 v3.0.0, which has its primary contribution
>harmonization with OGC GIS specifications, and some new features
related
>to roaming. See www.locationforum.org.

I was unable to find this document on the website by searching
www.locationforum.org. What do you mean by released? Unless it is
available to the public, it is impossible to judge whether it is
applicable to the IETF.

As for the so-called "Open Mobile Charter Initiative" after
searching for a couple of hours yesterday on the net, all I could
find was a flurry of press releases that were essentially
content-free. As far as I can tell, the charter hasn't been
published on the net. It beggars the imagination how this could
possibly meet any reasonable definition of "open".
Received on Tue Jun 11 13:20:14 2002