Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Issues with draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:26:30 -0800

James,

Few random points on this - I'm not sure any of them will make you  
much happier about this but if you think we need to do something  
specific, glad to get together with you and chairs and sort out  
anything.

The draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission is an individual submission  
and I don't think anyone is claiming it represents some sort of WG  
consensus. My recollection of the meeting was Jon and Ted seemed to be  
at pretty opposite ends of the argument - the fact that they took some  
time, figured out a common path forward, and brought that to the list  
in the form of a draft for discussion seems like an OK thing. Will  
they manage to convince a bunch of people that they have some real  
issues worth discussing? Who knows, but given both their track records  
for being able to clearly explain complex issues, I would not be  
surprised if they did.

For topics that overlap both SIP and GEOPRIV, it is some times  
complicated to figure out where to have the discussion. However, the  
people lined up at the microphones when we discuss this in either WG  
seems surprisingly familiar so I don't think there are too many people  
with strong opinions that will be unaware of this draft by the point  
in time any consensus level decisions need to be made. For any draft  
on this subject to have reasonable odds having consensus in IETF LC,  
the draft is going to need to use SIP in a way that the SIP WG does  
not object to, and the draft is going to have to treat location  
information in a way that GEOPRIV WG is OK with the privacy aspects  
of. But your point about make sure SIP is aware of this is well taken  
and I will send an email to the SIP list.

If you think there is something that any of the Chairs or I should be  
doing about this, or that this is emails is way out of line, let get a  
phone call with right people and figure out what the right thing to do  
is. I'm sure you like to see draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance done  
more than me but I really would like to see it done soon.

Cullen <in my AD role>

PS. I would view it as very sad if the technical arguments you are  
making below somehow got lost in noise about what was how we arrange  
the work between groups or the state of previous ad-hoc meetings.

On Feb 29, 2008, at 11:57 AM, James M. Polk wrote:

> I have more than a bit of an issue with the direction and conclusion  
> of this new document, as it contradicts (at least) the (raw) notes  
> from the Vancouver adhoc meeting on this subject.
>
> Here is a quote from the raw notes taken by Keith Drage (SIP WG  
> chair), who was running the adhoc, with regard to where the  
> indication should go informing a intermediary server that it can  
> view and/or use the Location Object):
>
> "Pretty much deciding that it should go in an extension to the PIDF- 
> LO.
> This means we avoid the SIP scoping problem.
>
> Rules in the PIDF-LO apply to everybody."
>
> This agreement was reached during an extensive, and unusual  
> discussion in which about a dozen of us eventually ended up in a  
> circle around the microphone (because so many had an opinion at the  
> same time), talking towards each other.  The discussion concluded  
> when Ted and Jon agreed Jon would write the extension into PIDF-LO  
> before the next meeting.
>
> 	draft-peterson-geopriv-retransmission-00
>
> ...is that ID, and it concludes that SIP should have a new  
> Geolocation header parameter, instead of there being any extension  
> to PIDF-LO.  There was zero discussion on either the SIP or Geopriv  
> list about this effort during its writing. Therefore, unless there  
> were back-channel private communications occurring, this ID is the  
> creation of a solution by the authors without consideration of what  
> the adhoc concluded in the previous meeting.
>
> I have a problem with that procedurally, but not from a point of  
> view that prevents anyone from submitting an ID (as anyone can, in  
> fact, do this), but I take issue with an agreed upon ID topic  
> drawing an opposite conclusion to what most of the interested  
> parties of 2 WGs agreed to from a face-to-face meeting, without list  
> discussion and agreement from either the SIP or Geopriv WG on this  
> new direction as appropriate or valid in some way.
>
> Further, it's not like this is a newly thought up topic, since this  
> has been a contentious issue in SIP Location Conveyance at meetings  
> in two WGs and in list discussion since before the Chicago meeting,  
> to include several announced and well attended teleconferences on  
> this specific topic.
>
> Further still, it's not like the solution recommended in this ID has  
> any security properties that make it a clearly superior solution  
> that is not arguable now that it's articulated.  It has almost  
> exactly as many flaws (zero integrity protection, visible to every  
> SIP entity in a signaling path, zero prevention from a intermediary  
> from view location information, etc) as the previous solution (the  
> "recipient=" parameter) that the adhoc agreed was not preferable.
>
> I also take issue with the adhoc being a SIP WG focused meeting,  
> because SIP Location Conveyance is a SIP WG item, that was announced  
> during the Geopriv session, yet this new ID is a Geopriv focused  
> individual submission - meaning the SIP WG will not (likely) have a  
> reasonable expectation of awareness this ID exists, much less  
> perform any review prior to any call for this ID to become a Geopriv  
> WG item, which necessitates the change of a SIP WG item.  It seems  
> obvious to me the SIP WG is being left out of this even though 100%  
> of the affect of this ID will be to a SIP WG document (only!) that  
> is nearly ready for its 2nd (and final I hope) WGLC.
>
> James
>
> BTW - if the new solution suggested by this ID had any additional  
> security properties (relative to the recently removed solution), my  
> issues with it would be far less.
>

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:12:46 -0600

Cullen

I don't believe I implied this individual ID had achieved any WG 
consensus.  I remember the discussion well from Vancouver, and you're 
right, both Jon and Ted were arguing opposite ends during most of the 
adhoc. I quoted Keith's notes to clarify what the adhoc agreed to 
(that this is to be a PIDF-LO extension, and not a SIP problem to 
solve), and pointed out that Jon and Ted got together and, without 
any list discussion (in SIP or Geopriv) changed their agreed 
position, and that of the adhoc's, and wrote an ID taking a new, 180 
degree position (wrt a recommendation).

My concern is compounded by the mismatch in timing of this effort 
too. I want to request the SIP chairs for Location Conveyance to go 
to WGLC, but I now cannot (or at least it would be useless IMO), 
because the peterson draft exists, and in a single Geopriv meeting, 
that WG can agree this individual draft become a WG item, making 
Conveyance have to change its content without the SIP WG having any 
knowledge or awareness of the peterson draft - even though it doesn't 
affect any Geopriv ID and *only* affects a SIP ID.

You, as AD of both WGs, ought to be able to see this as an issue.

James

At 06:26 PM 3/1/2008, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>>"Pretty much deciding that it should go in an extension to the PIDF- LO.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:13:56 -0800

>degree position (wrt a recommendation).

James,
	One of the things Jon mentioned in the meeting was
 a desire to get John Morris into a discussion of this.  That is,
I think, more than anything else why this draft took a different direction
that either Jon or I might have started from.  Though Jon did
most of the work on this, I think it was really John's ideas on how
to get back to a consistent reading of what "recipient" meant that
caused this change.  As you note below, the output of the previous
discussion included "Rules in the PIDF-LO apply to everybody.";
getting that to make sense in the context of the indeterminate
nature of SIP routing required us to re-think who the recipient
was in a more basic way than we first anticipated.  This is still
a -00, and there some changes I still want to see.  But I hope that
we can eventually agree that it provides a way forward that
will be workable for development and deployment.
	I apologize to you that this was so long in coming for any
part I played in this delay.  Being part of that last minute scrum wasn't
the intent here, and I'm sorry.
			regards,
				Ted

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:16:29 -0800

On Mar 3, 2008, at 9:12 AM, James M. Polk wrote:

> consensus.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you had. I think we all agree here that  
it does not.

> knowledge or awareness of the peterson draft - even though it  
> doesn't affect any Geopriv ID and *only* affects a SIP ID.
>

Yes, I do see how this issue might happen - I certainly I don't want  
either WG making any uninformed decisions. If you see a WG about to  
make an uninformed decision on this, grab the chairs from both working  
groups and me, and we will figure out the right thing to do.

Cullen <in my AD role>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:21:53 -0600

>groups and me, and we will figure out the right thing to do.

ack

thanks