Subject: [Geopriv] [FW: draft-anjum-pana-location-requirements-00.txt]

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:26:57 -0500

FYI.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anjum, Farooq 
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 9:48 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: draft-anjum-pana-location-requirements-00.txt

Hello everyone

 We have submitted a new draft on requirements to extend PANA to allow
for transfer of location information from the PaC to the PAA. This can
make possible services such as location based authorizataion. This might
show up in the ID repository in a while. 

It is also available at
http://www.opendiameter.org/draft-anjum-pana-location-requirements-00.txt . 

Look forward to your comments on this.

farooq

----- End forwarded message -----

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:46:02 -0600

Yoshihiro

I do not read any requirements for maintaining a user's policy for their 
location retention limitations and whether or not this location information 
can be distributed beyond the destination node.

Very early in the ID it is mentioned that the EP may or may not do the 
location verification, and that this may need to have the location 
information sent to a 3rd party.  I can't help but assume that the client's 
identity is included in all this - because one of the use cases given is 
that I am only able to access something when I am located near a certain 
location.  This means I have to reveal who I am with my location in order 
to do what this ID is getting at.

I have a problem with that.

Section 4.1 mentions RFC 3693 as a passing reference and doesn't mention 
the goal of a PIDF-LO as being a privacy container of location.  I fear 
PANA is attempting to get around this limitation on location conveyance 
either actively or passively.

Can one of the authors explain this to the Geopriv community?