Subject: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-uncertainty-00

From: Ray Bellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:58:05 +0000

I'd rather not have to call a WG session in Toronto just to resolve the outstanding issue about uncertainty in civic addresses.

Could I please encourage all of you who have an opinion on this to attempt to resolve your differences here ASAP, so Martin can get out the -01 version and I can issue the WGLC?

thanks,

Ray

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:36:26 -0700

> I'd rather not have to call a WG session in Toronto just to resolve the outstanding issue about uncertainty in civic addresses.

I don't think that we need meeting time either way.

---

From: TGLASSEY <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:31:46 -0700

Ray spot on.

But I want to talk about the uncertainty factor as a mechanism to also 
leverage declared location-jurisdiction as also being effective.

It's one of the things McNeil and I were doing with the BERT Token 
proposal to PKIX, it would be better refiled here, was to address the 
need to create virtualized legal statements about transaction processes, 
and that these were going to become key in the regulatory framework for 
administering what will become "the internet of things" in a regulatory 
manner.

The implications of this support the uncertainty briefs filing and its 
advancement IMHO and bring in the ability to tag this virtualized 
location sense as well to declaratory processes - i.e. we locate by 
contractual agreement the following about this data. All of that 
conceptual legal handshaking has to be integrated IMHO.

Todd

On 4/28/2014 4:58 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7404 - Release Date: 04/27/14
>
>

-- 
-------------

Personal Email - Disclaimers Apply