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

From: "James Winterbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:45:29 +1000

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