Subject: [Geopriv] Geo-HTTP/HTML and location URIs

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 21:30:13 -0600

Hi All,

I have just finished reading the updated submissions for html geo-tags and http geo-headers.  These drafts are revisions of those mentioned in the GEOPRIV charter, but I haven't seen much activity until just now.

My question is: what do we anticipate for the future of these drafts within GEOPRIV?

The drafts are both somewhat constrained in what information can be conveyed, I personally would prefer to see PIDF-LO being used for location information.  I do believe that we can't ignore the fact that they are desired features.

My thoughts are that these drafts would be better served by location URIs.  A location URI fits into both HTTP headers and HTML metadata and ensures that all the using-protocol problems are someone else's problem.  I'd also suggest that aligning a HTTP header with the SIP Location header might be expedient.  The only question: is the indirection acceptable to its users?

A corollary thought relates to common-policy.  Including X.500 details would make the following use case possible: User contacts example.com, including a location URI in the HTTP request header; the user wants example.com to be able to view their location - they only know them as "example.com", potentially from their server certificate.  How does a user grant this access?  I think that the interface outlined in these drafts is appropriate (http-header 9.1 User Control), but if we use common-policy - what does the machinery look like?

Martin 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:00:49 -0500

> My question is: what do we anticipate for the future of these  

I should have pointed to this earlier.  From the minutes of our  
interim meeting in May:

5) PIDF-LO in HTTP
   Andrew opened discussion on draft-daviel-kaegi-html-geo-tag and  
draft-daviel-kaegi-http-geo-header.  He noted that these drafts had  
been discussed at the GEOPRIV interim meeting in Washington DC, but  
was willing to reopen discussion because he felt the group had not  
fully understood the intended use cases.
   There was some discussion regarding forward progress of this work,  
interest in it by the working group, and the understanding of IETF  
process by the draft authors.  Andrew stated that he did not believe  
the draft authors understood IETF process, but that unfamiliarity of  
IETF process should not be a reason drafts are not given IETF  
consideration.
   Several participants expressed concerns that these drafts were  
attempting to by-pass all the privacy considerations that GEOPRIV has  
defined.  Many participants felt both drafts needed to be clarified.
   It was the consensus of the participants that draft-daviel-kaegi- 
html-geo-tag be accepted as a working group document so long as it  
described static location information meant for public consumption,  
and that this draft should reference GEOPRIV work for any other work.
   It was the consensus of the participants that draft-daviel-kaegi- 
http-geo-header would only be accepted as a working group item if it  
were first rewritten to use PIDF-LO.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Daviel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:02:34 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Andrew Newton wrote:

Again my apologies for not making it to all meetings or even
reading all geopriv mail (reading ALL my mail is impossible, thanks to
spammers and over-zealous webzine subscriptions)

> and that this draft should reference GEOPRIV work for any other work.

OK. How should I proceed with this ? (there had been significant changes
to boilerplate since the original drafts, which I probably still have not
fully addresses).
Any suggestions for specific text changes ?

> were first rewritten to use PIDF-LO.

Using the privacy features established by the WG is reasonable; I had not
intended that users write HTTP headers by hand  :-)

The application I had envisaged was as follows:

- I have a mobile device that somehow knows its location to a certain
accuracy (it has a GPS device connected, or it determines it from its IP
address, or it's just hard-wired in a config file)

- I wish to include this location information transparently to
certain websites, to facilitate local searching, or to return localized
pages in response to standard http GETs, in the same way as webservers may
return pages in different natural languages using content-negotiation (as
opposed to queries with location embedded)

- I have a control panel which will block, fuzz, or allow location
information going to various sites, in the same manner as is now done
for cookies or images. The control panel would typically be part of
the browser preferences, and is associated with a particular user or
user profile

- the application should not depend on the user having a webserver
somewhere on which their preferences are stored. But maybe this is
allowable, providing that there is also provision for local
storage of preferences.

I had conceived of a local http proxy that could add HTTP headers to
a standard browser request, rather than requiring changes to he browser
software.

Andrew Daviel
Vancouver Webpages