Re: Geopriv WG - meeting 5-6 Jun, other news

From: Richard Shockey ^lt;rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 22:00:01 EDT

At 03:17 PM 5/21/2002 -0700, Randall Gellens wrote:
>At 4:28 PM -0400 5/16/02, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
>> It strikes me there are two key requirements here which is 1. a
>> Location Object which is the semantic expression of location data and
>> other useful information ( raw or other ) of the Target that can be
>> interpreted by Location Seeker in order to act upon it and 2. A Location
>> Privacy Object that presumably under the control Rule Maker ( perhaps
>> the Target ) that expresses what information can be transferred and
>> under what conditions. Both of these objects reside in this "Location
>> Server" that can be queried by some undefined and presumably out of
>> scope application mechanism keyed on by some identifier ( phone number
>> for instance).
>>
>> I submit that any discussion of transport of geopriv objects be deemed
>> out of scope and those discussions are best left to the applications
>> that need geopriv data ...SIP for instance.
>
>It may be worth keeping in mind some example usages. For instance, there
>is an existing draft on requesting and disclosing location information
>within HTTP. In that context, a web browser (perhaps on a cell phone)
>requests a document and is asked for its location. There is a wide range
>of possibilities in how it answers that request, depending in many ways on
>what we end up with here in geopriv.

application specific ...

well please do not go down the road of discussing this in the context of
HTTP it may be an example but that leads to considerations that IMHO are
not in scope ... been there done that. I was involved in the Internet
Print Protocol work group for many years ... we have a admonition in the
IETF on the use of HTTP as the substrate for any protocol. READ IT WILL
NOT HAPPEN . I continue to advocate that any discussion of transport for
either the privacy or location object or their interaction is out of scope.

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3205.txt

Perhaps the first order of business for the off site is a discussion of
recharter.

>For example, the web server could partially fill in some sort of geopriv
>object, to indicate the required precision and age, its identity, and
>perhaps some broad category of use. If the web knows its location but
>doesn't have the power to process policy, it could perhaps fill in its
>location but encrypt it, and indicate a location server to which the web
>server can go to get the data decrypted subject to policy.

so the way I see this is, in the interest of reuse of existing work, would
someone pray tell me what in LIF object is not applicable to the task at
hand for the location portion of the problem statement?

>Such example uses raise questions about the information that needs to be
>in the object(s), if the policy itself is included or not, and if an
>identifier is included or not. (In the HTTP example, there is no need for
>a geopriv target identifier.)

So what is the privacy object? I'm really looking for answers here ...I do
not see a syntax of expression for privacy policy discrete from P3P.. is
this the task a hand?

Oh BTW as a reminder to to the list ..since there MAY be consensus that
this is still looking like the interaction of XML objects....

         Title : Guidelines For The Use of XML in IETF Protocols
         Author(s) : S. Hollenbeck, M. Rose, L. Masinter
         Filename : draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-01.txt
         Pages : 25
         Date : 16-Apr-02

The eXtensible Markup Language (XML) is a framework for structuring
data. While it evolved from SGML -- a markup language primarily
focused on structuring documents -- XML has evolved to be a widely-
used mechanism for representing structured data.
There are a wide variety of Internet protocols; many have need for a
representation for structured data relevant to their application.
There has been much interest in the use of XML as a representation
method. This document describes basic XML concepts, analyzes various
alternatives in the use of XML, and provides guidelines for the use
of XML within IETF standards-track protocols.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-01.txt

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza Bldg 8 Sterling, VA 20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640, Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or
<mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Received on Tue May 21 21:57:29 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:23 EST