Subject: [Geopriv] Usage Rules and Wishful Thinking

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:10:44 -0500

The recent discussion on what constitutes location information (specifically) or presence information (generally) have lead me to think about how the usage rules in PIDF-LO are applied.

Requirements in RFC 3693 dictate the inclusion of these rules, and RFC 4119 satisfies these requirements in a way that applies the rules to the location information only.

However, on examination of the <usage-rules> structure, there is nothing in there that is location-specific.  These rules could be applied to any PIDF <tuple> whilst retaining their meaning and addressing the 3693 requirement.  In fact, there I can see how the privacy constraints could provide value for other types of status...

  <presence entity="sips:[email-masked]">
    <tuple id="23y098drglkn">
      <status>
        <basic>open</basic>
      </status>
      <gp:usage-rules>
        <gp:retransmission-allowed>false</gp:retransmission-allowed>
      </gp:usage-rules>
    </tuple>
  </presence>

If this was done over, I would argue for this approach; I think it's cleaner.  I don't think that location warrants any privacy treatment over and above other forms of presence information.

,
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