comments to the list no later than Friday, 7 Aug 2009.
--Richard
----------
Minutes - GEOPRIV - IETF75
Summary (prepared by Richard Barnes):
1. Agenda Bash
Brian Rosen requested 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss
his drafts on extensions to the PIDF-LO civic address elements. James
Polk volunteered 10 minutes of his time for dhcp-lbyr-uri-option to
extend discussion of geopriv-arch.
2. Geolocation URI
draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri
Alex Mayrhofer presented a brief update on the WG draft describing a URI
scheme for geolocation. The current version adds a CRS parameter, and
the next will address comments from the URI-Review mailing list.
3. Location Filters
draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters
Brian Rosen presented a brief update on the WG draft describing a filter
language for location updates. The current draft is a significant
update from prior versions, basing the filters on the general RFC 4661
filter syntax.
4. GEOPRIV Architecture
draft-ietf-geopriv-arch
Alissa Cooper presented an update on the WG draft describing an overall
privacy architecture for GEOPRIV. The developemnt of the current
version was focused on refining terminology, in particular the meaning
of the term "LIS"; discussion of that topic continued in the meeting,
with no clear resolution.
5. Location URIs in DHCP
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option
James Polk presented an update on the WG draft describing a mechanism
for carrying location URIs in DHCP. Hannes Tschofenig submitted an
extensive review of the current version of the document, and James is
still working through these comments. James agreed to send a summary of
the open issues in the draft to the list. Several participants said
that the current prohibition against the use of HTTP URIs should be
modified to permit at least some classes of HTTP URIs.
6. Updates to DHCP Geodetic Location (RFC 3825bis)
draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
Bernard Aboba presented an update on the WG draft that makes a series of
udpates to address errors and unclear points in RFC 3825. Individual
changes are being tracked using the issue tracker on tools.ietf.org, and
most are awaiting text from their assigned authors.
7. IEEE Liaison
Dorothy Stanley, chair of IEEE 802.11 TGv, presented a liaison statement
from 802.11 to GEOPRIV requesting that GEOPRIV develop a binary encoding
for the GML shapes that are available in XML, mainly for use in interior
location scenarios. Some participants addressed doubts as to the
utility of such a translation, but others supported working on this
topic. Discussion will continue on how to respond to this request.
8. HELD Extensions
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-deref
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions
draft-thomson-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery
draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements
Martin Thomson led a discussion on a series of proposed HELD extensions.
He gave a brief description of each document, with some group
discussion after each description. Privacy concerns continue to be a
significant concern for the HELD Identity extension, and there is
continuing debate over the need for special mechanisms for residential
gateways. Shows of hands indicated varying degrees of support for these
drafts, but rough consensus to work on all four. Discussion on how to
sequence these drafts will continue.
9. PIDF-LO Civic Address Extensions
draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior
draft-rosen-geopriv-prefix
Brian Rosen introduced two drafts that extend the PIDF-LO civic address
structrure to include (1) "prefix" elements that match current "suffix"
elements, and (2) a generic element "INT" to represent interior location
elements. The major issue with the INT element right now is whether to
register values for it: Some view registration as necessary to avoid
ambiguity, while others note that the lack of standards for building
models could cause a lot of noise in the registry. A show of hands
indicated strong support for working on the -prefix draft; discussion
will continue on the -pidf-interior draft.
Raw notes from Marc Linsner follow:
------------------------------------------------------------
Geopriv Notes
Agenda Bash: brian wants to discuss INT
James wants lbyr longer
status update: charter updated; W3C GeoLocation last call deadline this
Friday;
Lightning Round:
Alex - GeoURI - discussion around CRS - consensus seems to be that WGS84
should be default, but don't preclude other CRS, solution in the current
draft. Is a URI parameter registry needed? What about privacy policies?
Brian - loc-filters - 05 released this morning; now based on RFC4661;
several changes - read the slides/text! Issue: Normal Reference to -dynamic
which is experimental
Alissa - Geo-arch: not trying to dramatically change from existing Geopriv
work or implementations. Describe what a 'LIS' means; James - the current
definition of LIS seems to fit the HELD arch but no necessarily the DHCP
architecture. Brian - there is current usage of LIS includes dereference.
Marc - the term LIS is still muddy. Jon - What's wrong with the current
text? - Brian - like I just said, 'own location' does not cover
dereferencing. Ray - ???
James Polk - lbyr uri - chose the auth. security model; rewrote the intro;
addressed Ted's concern; Hannes is addressing things from the 00 draft 2+
years ago. Some of Hannes' comments were good. Keith: this is a wg draft?
You are not the arbitrator of the text, the wg is. Hannes is commenting on
the jabber...(read the jabber). Jon: I'm lazy, I read the doc for the first
time today. I am curious why only SIP, SIPS, PRES uri? Why not HTTP uris.
James: Jon you agreed to this earlier. Ted: you need structure around the
URIs, hence this restriction. We need to work on this. Jon, we need HTTP
uri support. Ted: if we had support for a HELD uri would that satisfy your
concern. Brian: I want to support HELD uris James: this needs to be run by
Lisa. Ted: I'll take the task to run this by Lisa. Cullen: I agree Ted,
we'll work this out.
Bernard - rfc3825bis - started with 3825; we have an issue tracker; we will
make changes based on list discussion and consensus. Issue 9 & 10 closed;
Issue 1 resolved; Issue 2 needs list discussion; Issue 5 has been sent to
the list; Issue .... (read slides) Keith: does the assignee have more
authority? Bernard, all text will be discussed on the list. Martin: I have
proposals...I'm don't have motivation. Richard: please copy/cut paste from
your other draft.
Dorothy Stanley - IEEE liaison - chair 802.11tgv and liaison to IETF -
summarize the letter sent last week. (read slides) covered background of
802.11 location work. IEEE is requesting the IETF to extend the BINARY
representation of the location objects to include shapes, etc. Cullen -
verify the dates....wg doc. Brian questioned the usefulness. Martin
supported Brian. Marc - IEEE is asking for xml to tlv mapping, not critque
of their application. Ted - decide to do the work, then have the
application discussion Hannes - 3GPP has already done this work. Dorothy -
we chose to come to IETF first. Gabor - Nobody has this defined, not in
3GPP
Martin Thomson - HELD extensions - 4 drafts - deref, identity extensions,
res-gw-lis-discovery, held measurements. Derefernce - do people think this
is useful/necessary? Identity - (read slides) - Marc: Brian: I don't see
anything in the doc about a 3rd party using IP address to ask for someone's
location. Cullen: I believe we agreed to not do the 'authorized third
parties'. (missed some) Ted: I agree with Marc...you are changing the
rules around LCP. The draft needs to explain why/how we are changing the
LCP rules before becoming a wg draft. Martin: the doc talks about the need
for authorization. Jon: We need to solve this problem and need to
prioritize this as the first problem. Bernard: Maybe break off the third
party issue and deal with it separately. Lis Discovery: a large group of
home gw devices don't support this. Cullen: it's too strong a statement,
some devices do support. (Ray Bellis): this overloads option 15 and use of
it. Cullen: if we have a solution that is supported on some of the
existing, we need to use it. Ray Bellis: this draft will work with no work
in the home gateway. Measurements: necessary for cooperative location
determination. Brian: I think this is the least interesting of the 4 Marc:
please characterize measurements and identity extensions. Ray Bellis: In
the UK, we need identity and res-gw-discovery
Richard: Any more comments on the prioritization?? Identity Extensions then
HomeGw LIS Discovery
Brian: Concerns over putting deref off for another year.
Jabber room: all 4 are equally important
HUMS:
Those in support of the group working on Deref: (no hums)
Those no in support of the group working on Deref: (no hums)
Should the wg work on a deref for HELD: (little hums)
(never asked for the opposite)
Should geopriv address the problems of Identity? (17 hands raised)
Against (1 hand raised)
Gateway discovery problem, in favor (9 hands raised)
Against? (1 hand raised)
Measurements, (8 hands raised)
Against? (3 against)
Brian - Additions to PIDF - prefix draft - 2 additions to handle prefix in
civic addressing. Can we take this on as a wg item. pidf-interior - we
can't support a lot of interior spaces. This works in more cases. James -
no registry leads to interoperability problems. Ted - there is no standard
for interior spaces. Richard: Aren't these drafts at odds with each other?
Hum:
Should we do prefix?? (14-15 hands)
Opposed? (none)
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
