Thanks for the excellent meeting notes.
On item 7, perhaps related, there is a new collaboration about to begin
titled "Open Floor Plan". Essentially, this collaboration is between
multiple standards organizations and interested individuals that is
focused on defining a lightweight interchange and encoding for floor
plans. The driving use cases are emergency services and in building
navigation. Currently, the standards organizations are the OGC,
NIBS/buildingSMART, and OASIS. The "new" model would actually be a limited
profile of an existing standard from the international building industry
(I believe).
Regards
Carl
> Draft minutes for the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 74 are below. Please send
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
