all AD's. Tuesday lunch works.
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:58 PM
> To: Richard Barnes
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Location Coherence (LoCo) Bar BoF
>
>
> Tuesday lunch would probably work for me. Breakfast would not
>
> On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:12 , Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> > Someone pointed out that Tuesday lunch conflicts with the
> ISOC IPv6 meeting. Any major issues with Tuesday breakfast?
> >
> >
> > On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> >
> >> Wednesday lunch is looking worse and worse. How would
> people feel about Tuesday lunch? If I don't hear any
> objections by, say, early this afternoon, I'll go ahead and
> make the change.
> >> --Richard
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 17, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Richard Barnes 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
>
>
> Cullen Jennings
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
