people who are mainly interested in location issues don't have to stay
a real long time.
And anyway, the topic for the chairs lunch is just "How does legacy
IPv4 differ from IPv6?" Don't we all know the answer to that already
-- bigger addresses and no NAT, right? Duh!
--Richard
On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:14 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> At 07:11 PM 3/17/2010, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> Great idea
>
> great idea -- bad timing
>
> That's when the WG chairs lunch is that both Brian and Richard
> usually attend.
>
> Can this be some other lunch time than Wed?
>
> James
>
>
>> For some time now, I've been frustrated with our inability to get
>> on the
>> same page on these issues.
>>
>> I also wanted to get some kind of effort started on cross OS APIs
>> to the
>> LCPs.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/10 6:05 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > This email is announcing a Bar BoF at the upcoming IETF meeting
>> on the
>> > topic of "location coherence", to be held somewhere in the
>> vicinity of
>> > the GEOPRIV meeting, probably during the lunch break on
>> Wednesday, 24
>> > March. Since the topic is a little peripheral to GEOPRIV, I've
>> also
>> > set up a Google Group for discussions here:
>> > <http://groups.google.com/group/geo-loco>
>> >
>> > What I mean by "coherence" is this:
>> >
>> > In order for location-based Internet applications to work, there
>> are
>> > several pieces that need to work together, including
>> > -- Positioning sevices
>> > -- Location protocols
>> > -- Location APIs-- Application protocols that use location
>> > Right now, there are many different implementations out there for
>> each
>> > layer in this stack, each with its own set of semantics for
>> location
>> > related concepts -- not just the location that can be expressed
>> (e.g.,
>> > lat/long/accuracy vs. polygons), but also ancillary ideas like
>> types
>> > of location (civic vs geodetic) and supporting information like
>> signal
>> > measurements.
>> >
>> > In the spirit of allowing different organizations to add value at
>> > different levels of this stack, while still maintaining
>> > interoperability, it would seem like a good idea to have a coherent
>> > set of semantics for location concepts -- a common data model, if
>> not
>> > common protocols and APIs.
>> >
>> > Topics for discussion could include:
>> > -- How can we map out the space of things that exist today?
>> > -- What sorts of location systems would this effort try to
>> encompass?
>> > Protocols and/or APIs? Positioning and/or conveyance?
>> > -- What's the proper venue for this work? GEOPRIV? A new IETF WG?
>> > Somewhere else?
>> >
>> > As an example of the sort of thing that might come out of this
>> work, a
>> > colleague and I put together a partial draft looking at mappings
>> > between different location protocols:
>> > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doran-geopriv-proto-map-01>
>> >
>> > Thanks for taking the time to read through this, and I look
>> forward to
>> > some useful discussions next week.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > --Richard
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
