To add more to my rant about LCP on the interim meeting call yesterday.....
LCP is an aberration of the GeoPriv architecture. Early on, the GeoPriv work group agreed to allow LCP based on the fact the underlying communication protocol would ensure the LCI provided belonged to the recipient. Hence, no work required at the LS/LIS to verify that the requester is the target. It was never agreed that LCP was a ‘function’ that GeoPriv would provide, but LCP is simply an aberration that shares the baggage associated with the GeoPriv Privacy architecture with a communication protocol that can provide the guarantees as described.
Hence, we have created 2 LCP solutions, DHCP and (baseline) HELD. Both these mechanisms protect the privacy of the location data as they guarantee that the target is the recipient. Any mechanism where the communication protocol cannot provide this guarantee MUST be considered ‘not an LCP’ and follow the whole GeoPriv privacy/security architecture (policy set by rulemaker, enforced by LS/LIS, etc.).
My hope is to dispel the myth that LCP is a ‘right’ that target has to gain access to it’s own location data and GeoPriv must deliver on this ‘right’ at all costs. The overall privacy/security architecture must still be followed when a target is discovering it’s own location (trust relationships, identity verification, rule-based policy, etc.).
-Marc-
