Subject: RE: Geopriv WG - meeting 5-6 Jun, other news

From: Cuellar Jorge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:00:26 +0200

Hi Eric,

On Friday, May 17, 2002 2:44 AM  Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
wrote:

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine writes:

> At the November P3P f2f a vendor took the position that
> policy evaluation was actually much more complex than
> advertized (true), and another vendor took the position that
> policies should be expressed without reference to a DOM
> tree, and be carried in-band. At the conclusion of that
> meeting, compact representations on state management
> mechanism instances entered the P3P spec.

<snip>

> A representation format is useful. It could be in ASN.1, in
> XML, in BNF, and it could even be expressed as a MIB. There
> are a lot of choices.

This is true. I also have a preference for XML, as long as we
also have in mind that a compact encoding will perhaps be also
needed, ... 

> An event model is useful. It could be asymmetric. It could
> be symmetric.  There are a lot of choices.

How would this event model work in our context? Is that in the
scope of our discussions?

> A group or address-equivalence model is useful. It could be
> a GIPC built on unicast, it could be multicast. There are a
> lot of choices.

You mean the GIPC of http://www.opengroup.org/RI/technologies/gipc/?
I would rather take the draft: "Securing Group Management in IPv6 with
Cryptographically Generated Addresses" of C. Castelluccia and
G. Montenegro (draft-irtf-gsec-sgmv6-00.txt). But we are not so far now.

> Another bit of related tech is APPEL, spun off from P3P,
> November '00.

I know APPEL. How can it help us?

> Half the time I don't know where I am. The other half the
> time I don't know what time it is.
> 
>     I'd like locality representation format(s)
>                        and
>    I'd like temporal representation format(s)
>                        and
>    I'd like representation peering mechanism(s)
>                        and
>         I'd like convergence mechanism(s)
>                        and
>      I'd like interface(s) to AAA mechanism(s)

Yes, and to privacy enhancement AAA mechanisms.
But what are the convergence mechanisms? Negotiation
of formats, etc?

> [Basically, I'd like an NLP that looks and smells like NTP, with simple
and
>  secure variants, having zippo to do with GPS or carrier network
knowledge,
>  except as one possible, non-authoritative, source of l-and/or-t data, and
>  capable of supporting j-random policy requirements, as opposed to being
>  just their weak pseudo-technical restatements.]

I don't think I understood... Can you help me?

Regards,

Jorge
--------------------------------------------
Dr. Jorge R Cuellar     T +49 89 636-47 585
Security                
CT IC 3                 
Siemens        [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:57:26 -0400

> I also have a preference for XML, as long as we

Umm, which parser are you partial to? Do you have any device constraints?

> also have in mind that a compact encoding will perhaps be also

Back when Dan Jaye and I were dorking with what became P3P CRs, we had
the semantic space down to a few bits, which to be memory aligned, fit
into an octet, with copious room for growth. When the shrill cries for
compatibility got deafening, we started stuffing TLAs and blew the bit
budget upwards. Who cared? Its just cookie headers for commercial sites
and the cost of any fat policy phrase was vastly smaller in last-mile
bandwidth consumption than the associated banner-ad.

But here we may not be safe assuming commondity desktops and broadband,
devices with sensitive state may be significantly smaller and the band
width scarce or delay sensitive.

Compact meaning a third of the bits and no parser isn't what I'm hoping
for.

Oops. Kidz kall. I'll have to respond to the rest of your note later.

Eric

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:37:16 -0700

I'm still trying to get a head count for the meeting.  If you're 
going to be in San Diego for the meeting, I need to know by Tuesday.

I'd like to use a smaller meeting room than the one I currently have 
reserved.  It will be easier for people participating by phone to 
hear and contribute if we're in a smaller space.  But it will be in a 
different building.  So until I know which room I'm using I can't 
send directions to the meeting room.  I won't know which building 
we're in until I hear from you.

I'd be grateful for your immediate response, and my admin (who's 
really doing the work) will be tickled pink.

Thanks!

best,
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   While the belief we  have found the Answer can separate us
   and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues
   to bring us together, that makes and keeps us human.
   -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:38:47 -0500

>going to be in San Diego for the meeting, I need to know by Tuesday.

I'll be there

>reserved.  

This might add a temperature issue to the room with all the hot air coming
from our mouths    ;-)

>It will be easier for people participating by phone to 
>hear and contribute if we're in a smaller space.  

I don't agree with this -- people speaking up from the attendees should
walk up to the conference phone just like the microphone - thus minimizing
this problem. Crowding us will not be a good thing with this opinionated
topic(s), IMO

>But it will be in a 

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Senior Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:28:09 -0700

At 3:38 PM -0500 5/23/02, James M. Polk wrote:
>this problem.

This isn't a big deal.  Judging by the response, I'll keep the 
meeting in the bigger room.

I've always been a fan of the Authurian round table.  But that only 
works if the number of attendees is relatively small, or if the table 
is large enough so that we're all out of sword's reach of each other. 
(Those on the conference bridge still face the threat of being 
suddenly "cut off"...I'm considering a policy of requiring that all 
weapons be checked at the door...)

best,

jwn2