Minutes of the GEORPIV Working Group at IETF 66 11 July 2006 Montreal, Quebec, Canada Co-chairs: Andy Newton Allison Mankin Randall Gellens Scribe: Gaurav Kulshreshtha 1) Agenda Bashing. No modifications to the proposed agenda were requested. 2) Document Status Presenter: Andy Newton draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil is in the RFC Editor's queue. draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry is published as an RFC. draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy is in IESG review. draft-ietf-geopriv-policy was written up at the same time but was not submitted to IETF last call / IESG review due to clerical error. Co-chairs to issue working group last call on draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo. There was considerable discussion of draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance, which is related to the GEOPRIV working group. It was noted that this document was in the SIP working group due to established conventions on updates to the SIP protocol. The discussion led to the possibility of splitting the document into two documents, one related to SIP and one related specifically to GEOPRIV. No conclusion was reached on this idea and the co-chairs agreed to meet with the draft authors to persue it further. 3) Location Capabilities Extension Presenter: Randall Gellens Randall presented a draft that proposed extensions to PIDF-LO to allow clients to inform servers as to which location methods the clients support. Both Henning Schulzrinne and Martin Thomas believed that the proposal was mixing two uses cases, and that the draft was not clear in its intented target problem. Henning noted that capabilities can be conveyed in SIP via another mechanism. Brian Rosen asked for clarification on the use case of this extension with mobile phones. He also noted that location comes from either the phone or the network, but not both as seems to be indicated in the draft. Hannes Tschofenig stated that the draft needed to do a better job explaining the use cases. Martin Thomas also stated that he felt the draft need to state why certain capabilities needed to be communicated, such as why the client needs to communicate its capability with SUPL 2.0 instead of SUPL 1.0. 4) Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol a) GEORPIV Layer 7 LCP Problem Statement and Requirements Presenter: Hannes Tschofenig Hannes presented a draft that is the output of the Layer 7 LCP requirements design team. He stated that the idea was to have document that stated requirements, problems, and scenarios for a subscription URI from the network independent of the underlying network technologies. There was considerable discussion in the room around the identifier to be used for retrieving location information, especially regarding IP addresses. Brian Rosen stated that the use of an IP address required an applicability statement. Among the considerations for IP addresses are the various underlying network technologies (wireless, DSL, etc...) and NATs. It was suggested that the group find an identifier more granular than IP addresses, but no concrete example was given. There was discussion of signing just the location information (geo and/or civic), and Randall Gellens noted that such information could easily be copied. It was decided that much of the disagreement or confusion on the topic was due to unwritten design constraints. Andy Newton stated that such design constraints should be noted in the draft. b) Retrieving End System Location Information Presenter: Henning Schulzrinne Henning presented his proposed RELO L7 LCP protocol. Marc Lisner asked how a client gets the RELO hostname. Henning noted that there are multiple ways of doing this, such as with the DHCP host name or reverse DNS. He also noted that he was open to better solutions. Marc suggested using port numbers as was given in an earlier proposal. There followed a discussion of transparent intercepts and port numbers. It was suggested to use HTTP over UDP, but Henning was not comfortable with that solution. c) General Discussion The co-chairs opened the floor to general discussion on L7 LCP and any issues on the subject not relevant to the previous drafts. No discussion was needed. 5) Any Other Business The co-chairs asked if there was any other business for the working group to discuss. Henning inquired about the future charter and milestones of the group. Andy noted that many of the current work items were close to be done. Henning wanted to know how the L7 LCP work would be handled, and Andy stated requirements would be done and then the working group would consider which proposal best met those requirements. Henning asked for specific timelines on processing the L7 LCP documents, but Andy refused stating that any such given timeline would have no relationship with real world events.