Subject: [Geopriv] Device vs. Target Terminology

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:12:57 +0300

Hi all, 

the 'device' vs 'target' terminology from
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3693.txt is confusing for me, see: 

      Target:
         The entity whose location is desired by the Location Recipient.
         In many cases the Target will be the human "user" of a Device
         or an object such as a vehicle or shipping container to which
         the Device is attached.  In some instances the Target will be
         the Device itself.

      Device:
         The technical device whereby the location is tracked as a proxy
         for the location of a Target.

In http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt we talk about
the Target but the device terminology is gone: 

   Target:   An individual or other entity whose location is sought in
      the Geopriv architecture.  The Target is the entity whose privacy
      Geopriv seeks to protect.

[Btw, I only refer to entity instead of individual as in our protocol
mechanisms there are no 'humans' as such only identifiers.]

The problem is that we use the term 'device' in our documents. Examples:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-15
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extens
ions-09.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-location-conveyance-01
(Actually, we sometimes use Target and sometimes Device.)

The differentiation between Target and Device only makes sense if there
is a clear difference between the two. 

My question: Should we stick with the terminology used in
draft-ietf-geopriv-arch-00.txt and not use device anymore? This would
require us to run a find/replace action over a few of our documents. 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:26:04 -0500

My opinion:

When talking about automated determination of location information, the Device _is_ the Target. 

Using the term Device is more correct in this scenario, for two reasons:

 1. The architecture is more generic.  Location information is not always generated by automated processes.  Where location isn't automatically generated, the subject of that information needs a label.

 2. A Device is usually just a proxy for a person, who is the Target in the view of many consumers of this information.  It might also be a proxy for something else - like the shipping container that a tracking device is attached to.  Location information can be linked to a different Target through inference, or other more explicit means.

For this second reason, Target is the right term to use when discussing privacy.  A Target is any entity that the location information _could_ refer to, and who might have a stake in ensuring that the information is protected.

The arch document should recognize the distinction between the two.  We are building tools for Devices that aren't applicable in the general sense to Targets.  However, we need the generic "Target" label.

--Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
> Sent: Saturday, 22 August 2009 4:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Geopriv] Device vs. Target Terminology
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:28:03 -0500

my opinion

I think I'm ok with Martin said - except he didn't cover how we 
identity the device or target, as I believe Hannes likely wants a 
single identifier, and Device and Target have distinctly separate identifiers.

Scanning Conveyance, I thought I'd cleaned this up - but haven't in a 
few instances,  but will soon.

Thinking about point #2 below more, I think another distinction needs 
to be made, while true that a Target has proxied a device, I believe 
that the mentioned shipping container described solely as a device's 
MAC address is insufficient, as the container is either "Container 
123", or the container is what is in the container (i.e., "Container 
123 of 200 carrying XYZ widgets"), therefore there is proxying going 
on in that case as well.

The same is true for a specific instance of a surveillance camera 
when someone wants to determine where it is (cuz it just had a bad 
guy pass in front of it).  That it's a camera (verses a shipping 
container) is important. That's *the* camera in a certain room or 
near a certain building exit is more important. The key here is the 
label (i.e., identifier) of the room the camera is in.

Interested in what other think -- because I agree consistency is 
important in discussion and in our docs, and this topic has been 
vague for years.

James

At 07:26 PM 8/23/2009, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>  1. The architecture is more generic.  Location information is not 
> always generated by automated processes.  Where location isn't 
> automatically generated, the subject of that information needs a label.
>
>  2. A Device is usually just a proxy for a person, who is the 
> Target in the view of many consumers of this information.  It might 
> also be a proxy for something else - like the shipping container 
> that a tracking device is attached to.  Location information can be 
> linked to a different Target through inference, or other more explicit means.
>
>For this second reason, Target is the right term to use when 
>discussing privacy.  A Target is any entity that the location 
>information _could_ refer to, and who might have a stake in ensuring 
>that the information is protected.
>
>The arch document should recognize the distinction between the 
>two.  We are building tools for Devices that aren't applicable in 
>the general sense to Targets.  However, we need the generic "Target" label.
>
>--Martin
>