----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
Reporter: alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at | Owner: alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: geo-uri | Version:
Severity: - | Keywords:
----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
This is ready to go, other than one substantive issue:
The last two paragraphs of section 9.2 say:
> However, by putting a 'geo' URI into a context that allows
> identification of a "Target", the URI might become part of a
> "Location Object", and would then be subject to GEOPRIV rules.
> Therefore, Publishers of 'geo' URIs that are put into such contexts
> MUST consider privacy issues, particularly in cases where a URI
> instance is combined with Personally Identifyable Information (PII)
> with the intent to describe the location of a Target that is a person.
The first of these two statements seems more on the right track than
the second. If a geo URI is used in a context where it identifies the
location of a Target, it becomes part of a Location Object and is
therefore subject to GEOPRIV rules. I don't see the need to waffle on
this point, or to avoid using the requirements that we already have
set out in 3693. Therefore, the second paragraph would be better as:
Therefore, when 'geo' URIs are put into such contexts, the privacy
requirements of RFC 3693 MUST be met.
Other small comments:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>
> (Opinion only) Statements like this are generally not suitable for
> documents that are intended to have a long lifetime:
> Over the past few years, fast emerging location aware applications
> and location based services were observable on the Internet.
I agree with this opinion. I think the whole paragraph that this
sentence kicks off should be situated a bit more "timelessly." A few
suggestions:
s/Over the past few years, fast emerging location aware applications
and location based services were observable on the Internet./Location-
aware applications and location-based services are fast emerging on
the Internet.
s/a vivid open source mapping community brought an enormous momentum/a
vivid open source mapping community has brought enormous momentum
s/A wide range of tools and data sets which formerly were accessible
to professional only became available for a wider audience./A wide
range of tools and data sets which formerly were accessible to
professionals only have became available to a wider audience.
Other thoughts in section 1:
s/or trigger further services/or triggering further services
s/and write and email straight away/and writing an email straight away
s/(a physical resource)/(physical resources)
s/It is anticipated that such devices serve as/It is anticipated that
such devices will serve as
Section 3.4.1:
s/a wrong/the wrong
Section 3.4.3
s/subject/object
(I think "subject" implies a person, but we can have cases where a non-
human object's location is uncertain.)
Question: if the assumption is that the single uncertainty value
applies in all dimensions (which I think is the assumption, but I am
far from the uncertainty expert), should that assumption be stated?
3.4.4
s/180 degrees MUST be considered equal a/180 degrees MUST be
considered equal to a
3.5
s/require internationalization-/require internationalization.
9.1
s/refering/referring
9.2
s/a 'geo' URI by itself/within the confines of a 'geo' URI
s/it does also not fit/it also does not fit
s/Publishers/publishers
(although per my comment above I think "publishers" should be left out
altogether)
Alissa
--
Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/18>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
