Subject: [Geopriv] Fwd: GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:18:55 -0500

In case you missed this in the planning thread, or don't watch ietf- 
announce:

IMPORTANT:
if you are planning to attend and haven't told me, please do so now. I  
need an accurate headcount.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
> Date: May 12, 2008 5:45:01 PM CDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008
>
> The IETF GEOPRIV WG is holding an Interim meeting June 12th in Dallas.
> Please see the geopriv mailing list for more details on location and
> draft agenda.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

We will meet here:

Tekelec
17210 Campbell Road
Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75252-4203

<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=en 

Some hotels near this office can be found here:
<http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html>

The current agenda is

9:00-10:30	lis-discovery
10:30-12:00 	HELD Identity extensions
1:00-2:30	HELD Context management extensions
2:30-4:00	Dereferencing

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:41:42 -0500

Robert

Can I ask that
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-00.txt
be added to the interim discussion?

I believe the only remaining open item is the format of the timing 
field (whether it is given in 'seconds remaining' that a L-URI is to 
be considered valid, or with an absolute time (GMT style) that a 
L-URI is to be considered valid).

I haven't been able to get enough responses to this issue - other 
than from Roger - about this item.  I'd really like to understand why 
the L-URI simply error a request once it is no longer valid. Meaning, 
I guess I don't understand why this needs to be an absolute time at all...

I hope this discussion will not take very long (as in <15 minutes).

Once this issue is resolved, I think I'll be asking for publication, 
and having that done before Dublin will be beneficial.

Let me know

James

At 01:18 PM 5/16/2008, Robert Sparks wrote:
>In case you missed this in the planning thread, or don't watch ietf-announce:
>
>IMPORTANT:
>if you are planning to attend and haven't told me, please do so now. 
>I need an accurate headcount.
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>>From: IESG Secretary 
>><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]>
>>To: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
><<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=en>http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=en>
>
><<http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html>http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html>
>
>The current agenda is
>
>9:00-10:30lis-discovery
>1:00-2:30HELD Context management extensions
>2:30-4:00Dereferencing
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:49:57 -0500

If it's really that small, we should be able to put it down before the  
end of next week on list I would hope.

James is proposing the document carry only a relative time vs an  
absolute time. If that's a complete description of the issue, then  
someone that feels strongly that it should be an absolute time please  
respond with why.

James - I didn't follow this sentence:

>   I'd really like to understand why
> the L-URI simply error a request once it is no longer valid.

RjS

On May 16, 2008, at 1:41 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

>> <<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=en 
>> >http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=en 
>> >
>>
>> <<http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html>http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html 
>> >
>>
>> The current agenda is
>>
>> 9:00-10:30lis-discovery

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:56:16 -0500

(resubjecting the thread)

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:09:13 -0500

>>the L-URI simply error a request once it is no longer valid.

This means: I don't understand why a URI needs to be tracked as far 
as whether it is valid or not (i.e., the possessing of the URI).  I 
think along the lines of whether or not the location (by-value) is 
valid or has timed-out (similar to how the PIDF-LO <retention-expiry> 
element will be used), but this absolute timer suggestion has to do 
with whether a reference is still valid (based solely on the timing 
of the indicator on the URI). And I don't understand why this is an issue.

With that said, I have no problems including a valid-for time in 
seconds the URI should be considered good (it's only 2 
bytes).  Roger's suggestion that a GMT-style timer be placed in the 
Option more than doubles the size of the Option, and I don't know if 
it really does any good.  DHCP Option refresh is a local policy 
decision, and there will not be any great delay (likely <1 sec.) in 
delivering the Option to the endpoint (from the server).

-00 already has the valid-for field in seconds, and I want to know 
why it should be changed to Roger's suggestion.

(I'm not really picking on Roger, but it is his suggestion to change 
this field without any corroboration this is needed).

Have I made this clearer or made it worse?

;-)

James

>>>In case you missed this in the planning thread, or don't watch 
>>>ietf- announce:
>>>
>>>IMPORTANT:
>>> >http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=en >
>>>

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:31:41 -0500

Both Hannes and I have already requested that the HELD measurements
draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-02)
be added to the agenda. I am also not opposed to wrapping up the DHCP
location reference draft.

I do however request that any drafts that Robert were not in Robert's
initial agenda be put at the end so as to avoid any chance of primary
items not being discussed.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Saturday, 17 May 2008 4:42 AM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008
> 
> Robert
> 
> Can I ask that
><<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl
=e
n>http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=
en
><<http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html>http://www.nostrum.com/~
rj
> sparks/hotels.html>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 11:53:22 -0500

If you're planning on attending the interim and want to join a group of
us on Wednesday the 11th for an unofficial Bar BoF, we'll
be meeting at Trinity Hall at around 5:00ish:
http://www.trinityhall.tv/  (warming up for Dublin)
It's directly accessible (Mockingbird station) from the Dart Rail line
in Richardson: http://www.dart.org/maps/printrailmap.asp
The Galatyn stop is located at the Rennaissance (Marriott) in Richardson
- the 6th hotel on Robert's list:
http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html
 
There are two other hotels that are walking distance from there: a
Marriott Courtyard and Residence Inn. These are the first 3 listings if
you search on Richardson, Texas at marriott.com.  Note, that these
hotels are 15 minutes from the meeting site: 
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&h
(And I'd recommend avoiding the tollway and just going straight across
Campbell if you stay in this area). 
 
If you're not staying at hotels in this area, it still may be more
convient to park at the rail station in Richardson to avoid driving into
Dallas. 
 
I've setup a doodle to keep track of folks that will attend the BarBof
(they don't take reservations, so we need to stake out space):
http://www.doodle.ch/4xryn5tv5u43qgzb
<http://www.doodle.ch/4xryn5tv5u43qgzb> 
 
Regards,
Mary. 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:19 PM
To: GEOPRIV
Subject: [Geopriv] Fwd: GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008

ietf-announce:

IMPORTANT:

Begin forwarded message:

	The IETF GEOPRIV WG is holding an Interim meeting June 12th in
Dallas.
	Please see the geopriv mailing list for more details on location
and
	draft agenda.
	_______________________________________________
	IETF-Announce mailing list
	[email-masked]
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

We will meet here:

Tekelec
17210 Campbell Road
Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75252-4203

<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&hl=e
n>

The current agenda is 

9:00-10:30 lis-discovery

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:44:38 +0300

Bar BoF?
 
Is this a pure socializing event or would you like to discuss something
technical? 
 
In case I am allowed to make a suggestion: I would like to get an idea
of how many folks are interested in doing architectural work on early
warning. Since there is a core group of people attending both ECRIT and
GEOPRIV it might actually make sense to discuss this topic with folks at
the GEOPRIV interim meeting (outside the official meeting). 
 
Ciao
Hannes

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of ext Mary Barnes
	Sent: 17 May, 2008 19:53
	To: GEOPRIV
	Subject: Re: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008

	If you're planning on attending the interim and want to join a
group of us on Wednesday the 11th for an unofficial Bar BoF, we'll
	be meeting at Trinity Hall at around 5:00ish:
http://www.trinityhall.tv/  (warming up for Dublin)
	It's directly accessible (Mockingbird station) from the Dart
Rail line in Richardson: http://www.dart.org/maps/printrailmap.asp
	The Galatyn stop is located at the Rennaissance (Marriott) in
Richardson - the 6th hotel on Robert's list:
	http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/hotels.html
	 
	There are two other hotels that are walking distance from there:
a Marriott Courtyard and Residence Inn. These are the first 3 listings
if you search on Richardson, Texas at marriott.com.  Note, that these
hotels are 15 minutes from the meeting site: 
	
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+75252&h
	(And I'd recommend avoiding the tollway and just going straight
across Campbell if you stay in this area). 
	 
	If you're not staying at hotels in this area, it still may be
more convient to park at the rail station in Richardson to avoid driving
into Dallas. 
	 
	I've setup a doodle to keep track of folks that will attend the
BarBof (they don't take reservations, so we need to stake out space):
	http://www.doodle.ch/4xryn5tv5u43qgzb
<http://www.doodle.ch/4xryn5tv5u43qgzb> 
		 
	Regards,
	Mary. 

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
	Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:19 PM
	To: GEOPRIV
	Subject: [Geopriv] Fwd: GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008

	IMPORTANT:
	if you are planning to attend and haven't told me, please do so
now. I need an accurate headcount.

	Begin forwarded message:

		The IETF GEOPRIV WG is holding an Interim meeting June
12th in Dallas.
		Please see the geopriv mailing list for more details on
location and
		draft agenda.
		_______________________________________________
		IETF-Announce mailing list
		[email-masked]
		https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

	We will meet here:

	Tekelec
	17210 Campbell Road
	Suite 250
	Dallas, TX 75252-4203

	The current agenda is 

	9:00-10:30 lis-discovery

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 21:18:48 +0300

Hi Robert, 
Hi James, 

I read through the document and I have a couple of comments. 

-- URIs

"
Dereferencing can be done in SIP by 
   use of the SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY Methods [RFC3265] to either a sip:, 
   sips: or pres: scheme URI.  Each of these URI schemes are IANA 
   registered in Section 5 of this document as valid for use by this 
   Option.
" 

I would like to see you also speaking about the HTTPS-based URI. 
Respectively, Section 4.2 must be updated. 

In fact, I don't think it is useful to register the URI types. 

--- Location URI randomness / uniqueness 

I would not include mailing list discussions into the draft itself:

"
   As to the concerns about the Location-URI itself, as stated in the 
   document here (in Section 3.), it must not have any user identifying
   information in the URI string itself.  The Location-URI also must be
   hard to guess that it belongs to a specific user.  There is some 
   debate as to whether this Location-URI need be a random alphanumeric
   string or just unique.  If the latter, there is some debate as to 
   the how we define unique. Is that through space as time, as RFC 3261
   defines a SIP Call-ID needs to be (meaning: never a duplicate, ever,
   by any device, ever)? Or is it unique to within a specific domain 
   for as long as it is actively assigned to a client (plus some 
   interval).
"

When you hand out a reference then you need to make sure that it is
unique throughout the lifetime of the reference with regard to the
specific server. 

You don't want to hand out the same references pointing to different
entities. That would not make sense. 

We discussed the randomness aspect on the mailing list. Hence, it should
be clear. 

--- Authorization Policies 

I don't see the discussed issue of the geolocation policies being
addressed. As discussed during the IETF meeting you need to normatively
reference RFC 4745 and
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-15.txt to
make sense out of it. 

Without these policies you can only hand out a reference that points to
static location. 

I am also not sure about the encoding of the URIs; I am not the expert
in these issues but I wonder whether there is something regarding
internationalized domain names to consider. 

Ciao
Hannes

>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Robert Sparks
>Sent: 16 May, 2008 21:56
>To: Robert Sparks
>Cc: GEOPRIV; James M. Polk
>Subject: [Geopriv] lbyr-uri-option question
>
>>>>> and draft agenda.
>>>> 10:30-12:00 HELD Identity extensions 1:00-2:30HELD Context 
>>>> management extensions 2:30-4:00Dereferencing
>>>>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:55:00 -0500

Richard

comments in-line

>Respectively, Section 4.2 must be updated.

SIP Location Conveyance explicitly doesn't specify this URI scheme. 
Further, the two registrations (in the two IDs) are identical per the 
Application AD's suggestion. I would prefer not to fight the an AD on this.

>In fact, I don't think it is useful to register the URI types.

The Application AD thinks otherwise.  You were there for that 
discussion too (in Vancouver, at the lunch meeting with Robert, 
Cullen, Lisa, Jon, you, etc). Thus I will respectfully decline to 
make these changes until I hear directly from Lisa (on either) that 
another course of action is preferred by her.

>unique throughout the lifetime of the reference with regard to the

I've asked this question over and over again, and you're the first to 
answer this (just now, and not before now) as to whether this 
sequence needs to be unique through time. I also haven't seen that 
written anywhere - so where exactly is the consensus for this extreme 
level of uniqueness?

I believe that if a sequence is only given once, then this is the 
equivalent to an identifier, because only entity ever possessed it. 
Does that same entity always be given the same sequence by the same 
domain or network? If so, then it is an identifier, and I don't 
understand where that requirement comes from. If a domain or network 
can allocate the same sequence to more than one entity (but not at 
the same time (which is common sense), then what is the timing of the 
that decision or interval before the same sequence can be given out specified?

I guess I'm not clear why you want what you want, and I don't know of 
from where you are asserting this consensus based recommendation?

>entities.

ever?

>That would not make sense.

not at the same time, that would be admittedly foolish. But if the 
reference is not given out, ever, to more than one entity, then there 
probably is some form of attack that can take advantage of this (once 
other identifying information is learned by an adversary)?

In other words, I didn't get this push-back from when I was making 
the argument of random vs. unique sequence... Unique was stated to be 
ok with some folks (Martin Dawson was one I remember now)

>We discussed the randomness aspect on the mailing list. Hence, it should

we discussed the randomness aspect of this on the mailing list, yes, 
but it was never clear why this is needed, so we're not clear yet...

> ><<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=17210+Campbell+Rd,+dallas,+tx,+7525 
> 2>>>> &hl=en
> >>>>>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:29:33 +0300

Hi James,

> Richard
:-)

> Application AD's suggestion. I would prefer not to fight the an AD on this.
Sorry, I have to challenge them.

This does not seem to be inline with the other work we do in GEOPRIV.

> another course of action is preferred by her.

I will trigger a separate exchange with her.

> written anywhere - so where exactly is the consensus for this extreme 

I think this is a practical issue: You want to avoid handing out the 
same references with pointing to different Targets. That just does not 
seem to be right. Totally confusing for the Location Recipient.

> from where you are asserting this consensus based recommendation?

I thought I would be asking for something obvious.

The randomness aspect comes into the picture when you want to use the 
reference without authorization policies stored at the LIS. If this is 
not a use case for you then you can get away without that requirement.

>> You don't want to hand out the same references pointing to different

Can you think about a case where one references points to multiple Targets?

> ok with some folks (Martin Dawson was one I remember now)
You always need to see these issues in the context of the security model.
> but it was never clear why this is needed, so we're not clear yet...
The randomness aspect relates to the security aspects: authorization 
policies or proof of possession

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:30:09 -0500

As you suggest it makes sense to discuss some technical issues if a core
group of interested parties are there - they even have WiFi!  However,
you might want to see who all will be there before you pick topics,
particularly given IMHO that the early warning topic is more of a cousin
of GEOPRIV and not so closely related as it is to ECRIT.  Also, I'm not
certain how conducive the physical environment will be to anything other
than the typical informal side discussions (which are certainly always
valuable).

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:45 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] GEOPRIV Interim Meeting, June 12, 2008

Bar BoF?

 
Ciao
Hannes

	 

	 
		 
	Regards,
	Mary. 

	IMPORTANT:

	Begin forwarded message:

	We will meet here:

	Tekelec
	17210 Campbell Road
	Suite 250
	Dallas, TX 75252-4203

	The current agenda is 

	9:00-10:30 lis-discovery

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:49:16 +0300

Hi Mary, 

>As you suggest it makes sense to discuss some technical issues 
>if a core group of interested parties are there - they even 
>have WiFi!  However, you might want to see who all will be 
>there before you pick topics, particularly given IMHO that the 
>early warning topic is more of a cousin of GEOPRIV and not so 
>closely related as it is to ECRIT.
>  Also, I'm not certain how 
>conducive the physical environment will be to anything other 
>than the typical informal side discussions (which are 
>certainly always valuable).
>

It is also fine with me to just socialize. I will try to be there. 

Ciao
Hannes

>Is this a pure socializing event or would you like to discuss 
>something technical? 
> 
>In case I am allowed to make a suggestion: I would like to get 
>an idea of how many folks are interested in doing 
>architectural work on early warning. Since there is a core 
>group of people attending both ECRIT and GEOPRIV it might 
>actually make sense to discuss this topic with folks at the 
>GEOPRIV interim meeting (outside the official meeting). 
> 
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Mary Barnes
>	Sent: 17 May, 2008 19:53
>	To: GEOPRIV
>	If you're planning on attending the interim and want to 
>join a group of us on Wednesday the 11th for an unofficial Bar 
>BoF, we'll
>	It's directly accessible (Mockingbird station) from the 
>Dart Rail line in Richardson: http://www.dart.org/maps/printrailmap.asp
>	The Galatyn stop is located at the Rennaissance 
>(Marriott) in Richardson - the 6th hotel on Robert's list:
>a Marriott Courtyard and Residence Inn. These are the first 3 
>listings if you search on Richardson, Texas at marriott.com.  
>Note, that these hotels are 15 minutes from the meeting site: 
>	
>	(And I'd recommend avoiding the tollway and just going 
>straight across Campbell if you stay in this area). 
>	 
>	If you're not staying at hotels in this area, it still 
>may be more convient to park at the rail station in Richardson 
>to avoid driving into Dallas. 
>	 
>	I've setup a doodle to keep track of folks that will 
>attend the BarBof (they don't take reservations, so we need to 
>stake out space):
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
>	if you are planning to attend and haven't told me, 
>please do so now. I need an accurate headcount.
>	
>	
>	Begin forwarded message:
>	
>