Minutes of the GEOPRIV Working Group Session at the 59th IETF Meeting

Chairs:
	Andrew Newton
	Allison Mankin
	Randall Gellens

Scribes:
	Ted Hardie
	Scott Hollenbeck
	Randall Gellens

Jabber Logs:
	http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-logs/geopriv@ietf.xmpp.org/2004-03-04.html

Presentations:
	http://ecotroph.net/blojsom/blog/geopriv/meetings/?permalink=90D9FBF0E678B
46F4864A940534143C1.txt

1) James Polk mentions that draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-00.txt may 
meet GEOPRIVÕs milestone for a SIP Using Protocol draft.  He requests that the 
working group look it over.  Andy Newton will ask the question of the working 
group mailing list.
2) Henning Schulzrinne discusses the DHCP Civil draft (draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-
civil-01.txt).  He notes that it is complimentary to the groupÕs DHCP LI draft, 
points out changes to it, and feels that it is close to working group last call.  James 
Polk indicates that it is "LCI" (location configuration information) instead of 
"LO" (location object).  A request is made of "new", non-US participants to be 
check that the address format is useable.  A concern is brought by Allison Mankin 
on the work load impact this draft may have for the IANA.  Henning notes that it 
would not be too high at all.
3) Jon Peterson presents draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-00.txt.  Jon notes that it will be 
updated again to make it less SIMPLE centric.
4) Jon Peterson presents draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-02.txt.  Jon notes that the 
requirements section has been removed.  Hannes Tschofenig points out that it is 
difficult to understand which GEOPRIV requirements are met by PIDF-LO and 
which are met by a using protocol, and he suggests documenting this in draft-ietf-
geopriv-pres-00.txt.  Jon disagrees with the suggestion because it would make that 
draft protocol centric, which is a non-goal.  James suggests covering the 
requirements in draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-00.txt, with both 
Henning and Jon objecting.  This is followed by a discussion regarding a new 
SIPPING requirement for a source type of location information.  It is mentioned 
that requirements for the source type are not fully known and waiting on them 
would hold up PDIF-LO.  Jon suggests that this could be added as an extension.  
Andy asks that the discussion of this issue be taken to the list.
5) Henning presents the Common Policy drafts (draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-01.txt and 
draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-00.txt).  There is some confusion regarding 
distribution/retention rules. The room has few comments and Henning asks the 
group to review the drafts and send comments to the list.
6) Watanabe-san and Kurisu-san present the GLI system (http:www.gli.jp).  There 
are no comments or questions from the room.
7) Farid Adrangi presents draft-adrangi-radiusext-location-information-attribut-
00.txt.  The room discusses the implications of RADIUS trust models on the 
privacy of location objects.  There are many concerns about the trust model 
inherent in RADIUS relationships not being relative to the privacy of the end 
user.
8) Hannes presents draft-jones-radius-geopriv-00.txt and discusses the merging of 
the two drafts.  Again there is concern from the room about the privacy concerns 
of end users and concern regarding the bonding of user identities and 
authentication mechanisms.  There is also concern about special casing 
requirements for this work and the necessity to properly analyze use cases.  It is 
also mentioned that the verbose XML will degrade performance of RADIUS and 
there will be a need for compression.