arch. In section 2.3 (immediately following the section where "Target"
is defined), we say the following:
The term "Target" may refer not only to an individual whose location
is described by a LO, but also to that individual's device, since the
device engages in protocol interactions, not the individual. For the
remainder of this document, the term "Target" refers to the device.
Geopriv can also be used to convey location information about a device
that is not directly linked to a single individual, such as a package
or product containing a location-capable sensor, or a device linked to
multiple individuals.
I think in some of the other documents we do the same thing that was
done here, which is to pick one term that is generally accurate but
may actually mean both target and device, or one or the other, in some
contexts. The difference is that for geopriv-arch we chose Target,
whereas for the other documents we chose Device. My proposal:
1. Add the definition of Device from 3693 to section 2.2 of geopriv-
arch.
2. Move the paragraph above from section 2.3 to section 2.2.
3. Switch the convention established in that paragraph, so that we use
"Device" in the remainder of the document rather than "Target," unless
the point being made explicitly deals with something related to the
person who is the Target (e.g., when we are discussing the person's
privacy interest, such as in 3.1.2 where we talk about "the real
identity of the Target.").
I think that might clear up the confusion.
Alissa
On Sep 6, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm fairly certain this is the reason why Target is used in geopriv-
> arch -- because one of the primary motivations for writing the
> document was to explain the privacy architecture at a high level.
>
>> 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.
>
> I will take a look through and see where it makes sense in the
> document to use Device instead of Target.
>
> Alissa
>
>>
>> --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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
