When talking about automated determination of location information, the Device _is_ the Target.
Using the term Device is more correct in this scenario, for two reasons:
1. The architecture is more generic. Location information is not always generated by automated processes. Where location isn't automatically generated, the subject of that information needs a label.
2. A Device is usually just a proxy for a person, who is the Target in the view of many consumers of this information. It might also be a proxy for something else - like the shipping container that a tracking device is attached to. Location information can be linked to a different Target through inference, or other more explicit means.
For this second reason, Target is the right term to use when discussing privacy. A Target is any entity that the location information _could_ refer to, and who might have a stake in ensuring that the information is protected.
The arch document should recognize the distinction between the two. We are building tools for Devices that aren't applicable in the general sense to Targets. However, we need the generic "Target" label.
--Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Saturday, 22 August 2009 4:13 AM
> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] Device vs. Target Terminology
>
> Hi all,
>
> the 'device' vs 'target' terminology from
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3693.txt is confusing for me, see:
>
> Target:
> The entity whose location is desired by the Location
> Recipient.
> In many cases the Target will be the human "user" of a Device
> or an object such as a vehicle or shipping container to which
> the Device is attached. In some instances the Target will be
> the Device itself.
>
> Device:
> The technical device whereby the location is tracked as a
> proxy
> for the location of a Target.
>
> In http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt we talk about
> the Target but the device terminology is gone:
>
> Target: An individual or other entity whose location is sought in
> the Geopriv architecture. The Target is the entity whose privacy
> Geopriv seeks to protect.
>
> [Btw, I only refer to entity instead of individual as in our protocol
> mechanisms there are no 'humans' as such only identifiers.]
>
> The problem is that we use the term 'device' in our documents.
> Examples:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-15
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-
> extens
> ions-09.txt
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-01
> (Actually, we sometimes use Target and sometimes Device.)
>
> The differentiation between Target and Device only makes sense if there
> is a clear difference between the two.
>
> My question: Should we stick with the terminology used in
> draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt and not use device anymore? This would
> require us to run a find/replace action over a few of our documents.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
