[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ecrit] Location hiding: Consensus?



Just to address the point of relevance to GEOPRIV:

Proposal 1 does raise GEOPRIV concerns because it requires the LIS to give out location to unauthorized entities. Even if there's strong randomness in the LbyR, if someone does manage to guess or steal the LbyR, then the LIS MUST give that party the endpoint's rough location. Speaking with a GEOPRIV hat on, that's not OK.

However, the "rough location" proposal, in the abstract, does not require this. For instance Proposal 1B (that I added to Hannes' wiki yesterday) uses the LCP for delivery of rough location to the endpoint only.
<http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/twiki/bin/view/EmergencyServices/LocationHiding>


--Richard


Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

On May 9, 2007, at 10:06 PM, Winterbottom, James wrote:


Firstly, without the business model this is not going happen alternatives will be found, and they will likely be local derivatives. Business requirements are requirements none the less and to ignore this fact is silly. Two major carriers on this list have indicated that they will deploy this kind of solution, we can bury our heads in the sand, or we can solve it. See below that I think any kind of providing partial location is a bad idea.


If you recall the earlier discussion, we had already agreed that revealing the PSAP URL effectively reveals the PSAP coverage area, since this is generally public. Thus, trying to hide anything below that level is pointless, even if you don't believe in the fact that IP address-based location is, in most cases, at least as precise.




I don't really see ISPs necessarily competing with VSPs, they may in
some cases but they certainly don't in others. The example is exactly
the Brian's Sierra Leone case, how is my home VSP in Sierra Leone
competing with my the ISP serving my hotel in Minneapolis?

They may not be, but the solution has to work even if they are competing. Let's say I set up a VSP that believes that location information should be freely given to my customers. You are now prohibiting me from serving my customers if I don't sign your NDA? How would you enforce that the Sierra Leonian VSP doesn't hand out location information to their customers? Should every ISP sign an NDA with every VSP?


I'm sorry, but we are not going to make progress if we re-argue the core ECRIT assumptions for each problem. The 'no business relationship' assumption has been in our requirements document from the very beginning. It might even be in the charter discussion.



If I provide an end-point a fuzzed location how do they know what it is restricted to? If it is good enough for a LoST server to then provide them with a PSAP URI, how do you ensure without a doubt that it isn't good enough to get them to a Pizza hut? How do you ensure that the centroid will get them to the right Pizza hut? How do you stop thw wrong pizza hut from getting really annoyed because they keeping getting incorrect calls? The list goes on. Not to mention, that a LIS that did not previously need to know anything about service boundaries now needs to compute them. Please read this as "I really really really hate any solution that requires a LIS or LIS operator to do this".

ECRIT is solving the emergency calling problem. Besides, the same problem will occur with any non-precise information, whether this is cell-sector or this artificially fuzzed data. As far as I can tell, you have not been objecting to delivering cell-sector information to end users.




I would also like to stress that I think that this is as much a GeoPriv problem as it is an ECRIT problem.


I'm sure that adding another working group is going to help us make progress...


Cheers
James



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit





_______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit