Subject: [Geopriv] adhoc meeting on civic-address-considerations on fri morning?

From: "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:35:40 +0100

Hi,

In the GEOPRIV session we discussed the further steps for the civic
address considerations document - i'd like to use the opportunity to
collect feedback and ideas on that draft, plus probably get a direction
for further work, especially on:

- Process for reviewing and storing individual recommendations?
- IANA registry for those recommendations?
- I heard feedback that the draft was too long - suggested changes?
- one or two more countries in the example section? Any volunteers?

I was thinking of meeting somewhere in the meeting lobby on Friday
morning (9h30 - 11h?) - If you are interesting in contributing (or even
just lurking), please drop me a private mail. 

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:39:11 -0600

At 01:35 PM 11/19/2008, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:

>morning (9h30 - 11h?) -

this is when SIPPING is, so your turnout may be a little short

>  If you are interesting in contributing (or even

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:49:51 -0600

Earlier responses indicated that people who were interested were 
available for dinner tonight, so that's our current plan.

If you're interested, please meet at the front door of the Hilton at 19:00.

--Richard

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:07:22 -0600

>If you're interested, please meet at the front door of the Hilton at 19:00.

with the plenary still going on for an additional hour (i.e., till 2000)?

Isn't our Privacy discussion tonight (and Thursday lunch)?

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:16:40 -0600

If people are interested in both civic addresses and the admin plenary, 
we can probably slip it to 20:00.

IIRC, Hannes cancelled the privacy discussions this week.
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg06438.html>

--Richard

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:21:46 +0200

Correct. I also suggested that we could meet after the plenary in the
hotel bar. 

Ciao
Hannes 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Richard Barnes
>Sent: 19 November, 2008 16:17
>To: James M. Polk
>Cc: GEOPRIV
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] adhoc meeting on 
>civic-address-considerations on fri morning?
>
>If people are interested in both civic addresses and the admin 
>plenary, we can probably slip it to 20:00.
>
>>> If you're interested, please meet at the front door of the 
>Hilton at 
>>> 19:00.
>> 
>>>>> address considerations document - i'd like to use the opportunity 
>>>>> to collect feedback and ideas on that draft, plus probably get a 
>>>>> direction for further work, especially on:
>>>>>
>>>>>  If you are interesting in contributing (or even just lurking), 
>>>>> please drop me a private mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:25:54 -0600

That shouldn't conflict too badly with a 19:00 civic addr meeting.
--Richard

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:27:11 +0200

I meant that we can put both things together. Why not chat about civic
addresses at 8pm?

>From: ext Richard Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 19 November, 2008 16:26
>To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Cc: James M. Polk; GEOPRIV

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:08:02 -0600

><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg06438.html>

Richard - please reread this message, it says to meet about the 
privacy discussion in the bar on Wednesday night (I assume at 8pm).

It appears he's cancelling the Thursday meeting, which is unfair to 
those that can't meet tonight IMO

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:09:38 -0600

At 04:21 PM 11/19/2008, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>Correct.

correct you cancelled it (as Richard thinks) or correct we should 
meet (as your note says in this next sentence)?

you just gave completely conflicting answers...

>I also suggested that we could meet after the plenary in the
>hotel bar.
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:14:04 -0600

>I meant that we can put both things together. Why not chat about civic

I'm not opposed to the Privacy discussion being lumped into the 7pm 
discussion.  I have an 830pm conflict now.

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:12:58 +0200

I canceled the meeting since I got the impression that we made such good
progress during the week that our discussion items just got solved. Some
folks agreed to that. 

We can, however, still chat about GEOPRIV, ECRIT, and many other things
in the hotel bar.
 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext James M. Polk
>Sent: 19 November, 2008 17:10
>To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); ext Richard Barnes
>Cc: GEOPRIV
>correct you cancelled it (as Richard thinks) or correct we 
>should meet (as your note says in this next sentence)?
>
>> >>>>> address considerations document - i'd like to use the 
>> >>>>> opportunity to collect feedback and ideas on that draft, plus 
>> >>>>> probably get a direction for further work, especially on:
>> >>>>>

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:39:05 -0600

Resolved: Those interested in discussing civic addresses and possibly 
other GEOPRIV related-topics please meet at the front of the Hilton at 
7PM to go out to dinner.

James M. Polk wrote:
>> >opportunity

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:14:16 -0600

>progress during the week that our discussion items just got solved. Some

Hannes - nothing like a open discussion to hear all about this... (NOT!!!)

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:15:15 +0200

During the HELD update presentation, the following question was raised:

3. Specific range for frequency of location Requests for
mobile devices:
 Currently = several minutes
 Propose: change to >2 minutes and <10 minutes?

And there was a proposal to make that time interval 30min.

While 30min sounds more reasonable than ">2 minutes and <10 minutes", I would note that a mobile device should not be required to make location updates using HELD, unless the device will rely on HELD to get its location for emergency call purposes. 
Currently mobile devices rely on L2 location information for that purpose. And any unnecessary message exchanges consume battery life, and that should be avoided.

Therefore, I would request to make this clarification when specifying the time interval.

- Gabor

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:27:12 -0600

Gabor,

I think there's a confusion of timeouts here (caused by some bad wording 
on the slide).  The timeout here is for when location URIs expire:
"
The "expires" attribute is RECOMMENDED not to exceed
24 hours and SHOULD be a minimum of several minutes.
"
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-10>

This timeout only loosely specifies how often a client would need to do 
a HELD request to get new URIs.  The transaction in which a client 
actually gets location would be a secondary dereference, which would 
ideally be guided, as you say, by L2 mechanisms.

I think the text in the document is pretty clear, it's just the slides 
that are weird.  Does this make sense?

--Richard

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:14:16 -0600

Hi Gabor,

There was confusion in the meeting over what this number referred to.  I'd like to clear that up.  The original issue, which came from a review from Cullen, was that there was no guidance on how long a _location URI_ was to be good for.

The outcome of this discussion was that the recommendation would be "at least 30 minutes".  Which ensures that a location URI doesn't become unusable sooner. 

There are no suggestions on request intervals for mobile devices.  I'll strongly argue that that cannot and should not be a suggestion for location by value.  Polling might be convenient in some cases, but the appropriate rate will largely depend on the application.  No sensible suggestion can be made.

Cheers,
Martin

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2008 2:15 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Geopriv] HELD: range for frequency of location Requests for
> MobileDevices
> 
> While 30min sounds more reasonable than ">2 minutes and <10 minutes", I
> would note that a mobile device should not be required to make location
> updates using HELD, unless the device will rely on HELD to get its
> location for emergency call purposes.
> Currently mobile devices rely on L2 location information for that
> purpose. And any unnecessary message exchanges consume battery life,
> and that should be avoided.
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:22:52 -0600

Hi Gabor,

I will make sure that the text is not misleading. This text is there in order to support the LCP PS Requirement L7-2: Mobility Support (in the appendix)
  "The GEOPRIV Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol MUST support a
   broad range of mobility from devices that can only move between
   reboots, to devices that can change attachment points with the impact
   that their IP address is changed, to devices that do not change their
   IP address while roaming, to devices that continuously move by being
   attached to the same network attachment point."

   COMPLY

   Mobility support is inherently a characteristic of the access network
   technology and HELD is designed to be access network agnostic.
   Consequently HELD complies with this requirement.  In addition HELD
   provides specific support for mobile environments by providing an
   optional responseTime attribute in location request messages.
   Wireless networks often have several different mechanisms at their
   disposal for position determination (e.g.  Assisted GPS versus
   location based on serving base station identity), each providing
   different degrees of accuracy and taking different amounts of time to
   yield a result.  The responseTime parameter provides the LIS with a
   criterion which it can use to select a location determination
   technique.

Hopefully, Richard's response also clarifies your concern.

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] HELD: range for frequency of location Requests for MobileDevices

3. Specific range for frequency of location Requests for mobile devices:
§ Currently = several minutes
§ Propose: change to >2 minutes and <10 minutes?

- Gabor