Subject: [Geopriv] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-geopriv-policy (Chris Newman)

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:18:35 +0200

Here is Chris's DISCUSS:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy/comment/71974/?

"
I share many of Lisa's concerns.  It is my suspicion that if the polygon
feature remains in the initial publication that it will have to be dropped
to advance to draft.  Might be better to drop it now to save time.  Is 
there a use case where rectangles or civic information is not sufficient?

We already have consumer map services that omit information related to 
military installations and similar high-security locations.  Perhaps 
that sort of omission will simply be built-into geopriv system and not 
need a standardized policy language of this complexity?
"

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

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:43:50 -0400

I don't see why a polygon is significantly more complicated than a  
rectangle. The motivation was to easily create (reasonable)  
approximations to rules such as "don't show my location if I'm within  
50 miles of my home".

I do not know whether such location-dependent rules will actually be  
used; they clearly go beyond existing capabilities. I'm not opposed  
to dropping all such rules, including the civic ones, and create a - 
bis- version of the spec if there's market demand.

Henning

On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> to advance to draft.  Might be better to drop it now to save time.   
> Is there a use case where rectangles or civic information is not  
> sufficient?
>
> We already have consumer map services that omit information related  
> to military installations and similar high-security locations.   
> Perhaps that sort of omission will simply be built-into geopriv  
> system and not need a standardized policy language of this complexity?
> "
>
>
>