Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Draft minutes of the GEOPRIV Interim Meeting of 16-17 May2005

From: "McCalmont, Patti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:41:29 -0500

Hi Andy,

I agree with both James and Nadine on the Layer 7 approach so believe it
just wasn't captured in the notes.

Patti

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of James Winterbottom
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:45 PM
To: Andrew Newton; Abbott, Nadine B
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Draft minutes of the GEOPRIV Interim Meeting of
16-17 May2005

Hi Andy, 

There was a specific question put forward in the meeting as to whether
someone would pickup the task of writing a Layer 7 draft for location
acquisition and I agreed to do this. To highlight this I have had people
subsequently send me emails offering to provide assistance. So I am not
sure that I agree with your sentiment below.

Cheers 
James 

> I had the sense that there was agreement that for some access 
> architectures (not just wireless, but also architectures where 
> multiple 
> service providers are involved) it may be necessary to support an 
> application layer protocol for a device to acquire its location 
> information, and that it could be distinct from the layer 2 mechanisms

> used for location determination. 

I did not get the feeling that opinions were coalescing toward this  
thought.  So I don't feel comfortable amending the minutes this way. 

However, it would be interesting to tease this idea apart.  Perhaps  
it did not get thoroughly vetted in the meeting. 

> As you stated in item 3, Allison Mankin cautioned that a layer 7 
> protocol must implement measures to limit the unintended 
> distribution of 
> information.  But I did get the sense at the meeting that there was 
> agreement about actively pursuing this in the Geopriv WG--that I do  
> not 
> see reflected in your notes. 

I generally ask very specific questions such as "Should we take on  
this new work?" for things like this.  I do not see that reflected in  
any of the raw notes.  Was there a particular draft being referenced,  
or did we specifically nominate somebody to write a draft? 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:22:18 -0400

On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:41 AM, McCalmont, Patti wrote:
> I agree with both James and Nadine on the Layer 7 approach so  
> believe it just wasn’t captured in the notes.
It's hard to argue against this. I'll amend the minutes to include this.

-andy