Subject: [Geopriv] Rough Draft: minutes GEOPRIV70

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:05:03 -0800

Many thanks to both Richard Barnes and Miguel Garcia for taking notes.

This is a first draft of minutes for GEOPRIV's meeting at IETF70. I  
don't have Richard's notes yet - when I get them, they will be  
appended and the summary will be updated with anything I haven't  
captured there already.

Please send comments/corrections to the list or directly to me asap.

Thanks,

RjS

MINUTES - GEOPRIV - IETF70
Friday December 5 2007 0900-1130

Summary:

* Richard Barnes has taken on the role of GEOPRIV working group  
secretary

* We will try to pull together an interim GEOPRIV meeting in early  
2008. Watch the list for details.

* -http-location-delivery is close to done. There is work to be done  
in the Security Considerations, a held URI scheme needs to be added,  
and the document needs to be scrubbed to make sure normative language  
is only applied to the protocol and not internal logic at any  
element. Volunteers for detailed review of this document are asked to  
send mail to the chair. This document will probably go through WGLC  
in early January.

* There will be a draft from Jon and Ted on possible changes to PIDF- 
LO to address the concerns around redistribution and routing by  
intermediates that resurfaced while discussing location conveyance in  
SIP.

* The room expressed consensus to adopt draft-thompson-geopriv-lis- 
discovery-03 as a working group item.

* The room expressed interest in pidf-lo-dynamic. Henning will revise  
the draft before the Philidelphia meeting. We will ask there (if not  
before) whether the group wants to take this on as a working group item.

* The room expressed consensus to adopt draft-polk-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr- 
uri-option-02 as a working group item. There was lengthy discussion  
and remaining concern around security that will need to be worked  
through.

* Henning led an impromtu discussion around the taxonomy of location  
URLs that resonated well with the room. The concepts will be captured  
in a working group document (TBD). They point to possible mechanism  
(indicating what kind of location is being requested) that may need  
to be added to protocols that obtain location references.

* The group asked that the civicaddresses-austria draft be reworked  
into a "Guidelines for placing addresses into PIDF-LO" information  
document, using the examples from Austria as motivation for its  
recommendations.

======================================================================
Raw notes as recorded by Miguel Garcia:

GEOPRIV
=======
15m 	 Administrivia 	 Robert

The agenda is slightly bashed.

30m 	http-location-delivery (HELD)

Mary presentes the slides

James: elements and attributes are not the same in XML.
Mary: we don't use it consistently. Params should refer to either
elements or attributes.

Topic: responseTime type
Topic: devices that move after the VPN is up. Should we update the
text?

Topic: Error code extensibility.

Topic: HELD URI

Topic: normative document dependencies requireing WG
adoption/progresion

Jon Peterson: teh question is how the general security issues apply to
this location acquisition.

Richard Barnes: address the security issues individually in each
protocol.

Jon Peterson: it is a scheduling thing, and presenting items to the
IESG in order. We ought to have a story before proceeding to the IESG.

James/Hannes: we need Richard's security document into the WG.

Resolution: we need the normative references to the security document.

Robert: there is a dependency here. There is a candidate here to fill
the missing section. The group has to read the document and then
decide if we can agree on it and push.

A.I to Robert to send an e-mail to the list encouraging people to read
the security document and provide comments.

Roger Marshall: the document should not put security constraints to
other protocols than HELD. For example: the text says the location
SHOULD be accurate.

Henning: one thing is the external behavior (MUST and SHOULDS). Then
there are operational recommendations (good ideas and things to
consider), which should be informative.

Jon: the text speaks about the function of the LIS box that
constitutes the HELD server.

A.P. to Mary to inspect the document and look at this kind of
normative/informative statements.

Version -04 should be ready by early January.

Plan to WGLC at the early part of the year.

Reviewers requested.

http-location-delivery
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-03
	Mary

Robert introduces the discussion of the recipient= parameter in
geolocation. There is a disagreement on what this parameter means. Jon
Peterson agreed to put a draft.

Jon Peterson: The draft will put an indicator inside
PIDF-LO that will designate whether routing is permitted. Kind of
binary permission flag. In SIP is hard to indicate who is the target
of the request. PIDF-LO was thought around a subs/not mechanism. But
push model is not compatible with retransmissions. Idea to make
special allowance for push systems to make special permission to the
routing based on location.

Ted Hardie: we should have a draft in Philadelphia to talk about
it. It's gonna be ugly. We either need the permission that Jon talk
about or we need to change PIDF-LO and change how it works.

Henning: we now have a concrete model of what happens to location
conveyance. It would be nice to have a set of use cases that describe
a bunch of issues (3PCC, 302 redirect). The use cases should look at
the redistribution flag and the routing flag.

Henning: there is an issue with the reconciliation of legal aspects
and protocol aspects. Some lawyers talk about legal entities as
opposed to domain names. Comparing URIs with legal entities is not
going to solve the problem. We should explore this discussion and bring
people who gave us legal advice years ago.

Robert: this topic to the list.

LIS Discovery
draft-thomson-geopriv-lis-discovery-03
	James W

Lots of people read the document. Hmmm reveals that the group wants to
adopt tihs document as WG item.

pidf-lo-dynamic
draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-02
	Henning

Henning: idea is to extend the LO with dynamic features. Useful for
locatoin tracking, fleet management, safety of personnel. The document
contains means to cover speed, acceleration, direction, bearing.

Topic: units on the wire (m/s, m2/s). Proposal to use a unique set of
units. Endpoints can convert if they wish in the User Interface.

Resolution: consensus to use a single unit.

Rohan: most people want to express two dimentions. The document needs
to say that.

Rohan: acceleration is a weird word. Call the attribute 'linear
acceleration'.

Topic: how to indicate use of dynamic feature PIDF-LO in HELD? Two
choices:
1- I get to request Geo and you get me whatever you have
2- You explicitly say give me these extensions and if you can't do
that, give me an error
3- Please give me acceleration, but if you can't give me civic.

Hennig: Proposal, for now do option 1. Then in the future we can
extend HELD in a backwards compatible way to request specific
acceleration.

Rohan: you need to consider filters.

A.P. to remind Henning to consider filters for this document.

Agreed to do a new revision before Philadelphia. Then decide there
whether to adopt as a WG item or not.

dhcp-lbyr-uri-option
draft-polk-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-02
	James P

Jon Peterson: I liked it, we need to do it, this is the right solution

James W: in the other two DHCP drafts we agreed...

Ted Hardie: rather than talking of harmful URI, enumerate the URIs
people can expect. You might see the same URI scheme more than once.

Hannes: good document, needs better security considerations.

There is a discussion on the security properties of DHCP and the
document itself.

There is a discussion whether posession of the URI means posession of
the location. Several arguments at this respect, not clear conclusion.

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion to respect the security
implications.

Robert: comments that the document goes in the right
direction. Comments that more stuff is needed.

Lisa: we don't understand the security implications.

Randal Gellens suggests signing a URI with a revocable key like
LEMONADE.

Henning discusses the taxonomy of location URLs

Hening discusses the 3+1 different classes of URLs that we may have.

Jon Peterson throws the idea of having different DHCP options to
request a particular kind of URL location.

There seems to be consensus in the room that this is a good analysis
and is badly needed.

Hannes supports the idea of having the ability to request a specific
kind of URL.

Henning suggests to deprecate the term LbyR and use instead any of the
4 precise URL types.

James W: we had LbyR because this is what the requirement said.

Robert: we need to capture this in some sort of document.

Robert: coming back to the DHCP draft, do we have a conclusion now?

Cullen: there is no open issues about the DHCP document.

Jon: Disagree, we need a mechanism to request a specific type of URL.

Robert 3 questions.
1- adopting the DHCP draft (James P)
2- not adopting the draft
3- leave it in the state it is now, come back later

Consensus on adopting the DHCP draft. To be confirmed on the list.

10m 	civicaddresses-austria
draft-wolf-civicaddresses-austria-00
	Karl

Hannes and James W suggest to reuse an existing field to write a bunch
of parts of the civic address. Reason: it is reversible. Austrian gets
to know how to use them, for the rest it is an opaque street.

It is suggested to turn the draft into an informational RFC about  
'Guidelines and
considerations when to write Austrian addresses in PIDF-LO'.

Robert: revise this, work with authors, bring it as an individual next
time.

10m 	HELD Dereference
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-00
	James W

While not many people has read the document, many people plan to read
it. It is not possible to pick this one as a WG item due to the lack
of people who read it.

20m 	Uncertainty and Confidence 	James W
draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-00

There are comments in favor of this document.

There are comments on the relation of the application of uncertainty
and confidence, related to the importance of the data.

Robert:
- Interim around late January
- Richard Barnes will join as a WG secretary

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