RE: Back to terminology

From: Cuellar Jorge ^lt;Jorge.R.Cuellar@mchp.siemens.de>
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 11:14:58 EST

Hi Axel,

I fully agree! I am also in favor of restricting ourselves
to the case where we have only one owner.

Best regards,

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Axel Busboom (EED) [mailto:Axel.Busboom@eed.ericsson.se]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:46 PM
To: Cuellar Jorge
Cc: 'geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: Back to terminology

Hi Jorge,

sounds good, I'm happy with the terminology, as proposed in your
update earlier today.

> What I would like to ask the group in particular is, if they
> are comfortable with:
> - the target not necessarily being a device

Yes, I think this should be within our scope. When a person
uses, for example, an ID card to enter a building, then the
card reader is doing a location "sighting", whether voluntarily
or not. In this example, it makes little sense to consider this a
sighting of the (stationary) card reader or of the (potentially
passive, e.g. bar code) ID card, but the sighted entity rather
is the person. There may be other cases where it is the device
that is actually sighted, e.g. a cell phone shared by several
users.

> - the "owner" as the being "owner of the privacy rights"

I'm also happy with this definition. The key open question
here seems to be whether we want to include the case that
a single target can have more than one owner (of privacy
rights). I could certainly think of scenarios where this
applies. However, for the mere sake of limiting complexity,
I would vote for leaving this out of scope for the time
being. Otherwise, we'll have to address rather complex
matters, such as delegation of privacy rights, resolution
of conflicting policies etc. I would tend to second
Randall there, who uttered concerns about keeping
complexity within reasonable bounds.

/Axel
Received on Thu Feb 21 11:17:06 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:22 EST