Last Modified: 2003-02-20
But while the formatting and transfer of such information is in some sense a straightforward process, the implications of doing it, especially in regards to privacy and security, are anything but.
The primary task of this working group will be to assess the the authorization, integrity and privacy requirements that must be met in order to transfer such information, or authorize the release or representation of such information through an agent.
In addition, the working group will select an already standardized format to recommend for use in representing location per se. A key task will be to enhance this format and protocol approaches using the enhanced format, to ensure that the security and privacy methods are available to diverse location-aware applications. Approaches to be considered will include (among others) data formats incorporating fields directing the privacy handling of the location information and possible methods of specifying variable precision of location.
Also to be considered will be: authorization of requestors and responders; authorization of proxies (for instance, the ability to authorize a carrier to reveal what timezone one is in, but not what city. An approach to the taxonomy of requestors, as well as to the resolution or precision of information given them, will be part of this deliverable.
The combination of these elements should provide a service capable of transferring geographic location information in a private and secure fashion (including the option of denying transfer).
For reasons of both future interoperability and assurance of the security and privacy goals, it is a goal of the working group to deliver a specification that has broad applicablity and will become mandatory to implement for IETF protocols that are location-aware.
Two further deliverables of the WG will be:
o An example API for application-level access to/management of link-based location information. That is, for instance, the WG may describe an API for secure, privacy-enabling user/ application handling of location information specific to a 3G wireless link technology.
o Development of i-ds that make security and privacy integral to location information in HTTP and HTML, based on the work in draft-daviel-html-geo-tag-05.txt and draft-daviel-http-geo-header-03.txt.
Out of Scope:
This WG won't develop location-determining technology. It will work from existing technologies and where the technology is undeveloped, will state that applicability may await others' developments.
This WG won't develop technology to support any particular regulatory requirement [e.g. E.911] but will provide a framework that might be used for private/secure definition of such technologies by other bodies.
Coordination:
The WG will coordinate with other WGs developing general privacy and location-aware functions, e.g. the SIP WG, so that the WG deliverables can be used by them. Other coordination should include the NymIP research community, WC3, and the Location Information Forum.
| JUN 02 | Discuss initial geopriv scenarios and application requirements i-d's | |
| JUN 02 | Discuss initial geographic location privacy and security requirements i-d. | |
| AUG 02 | Initial i-d on geographic information protocol design, including privacy and security techniques. | |
| AUG 02 | Review charter and initial i-ds with AD, and have IESG consider rechartering if necessary. | |
| AUG 02 | Submit geopriv scenarios and application requirements to IESG for publicaiton as Informational RFCs | |
| SEP 02 | Submit security/privacy requirements I-D to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. | |
| SEP 02 | Use initial framework to restructure drafts on geographic information in HTTP and HTML so that location security and privacy are integral. | |
| DEC 02 | Use initial framework to develop an example location/privacy API that might be used in a 3G handset or other consumer application. | |
| JAN 03 | Submit geopriv protocol, geopriv http, geopriv html, and handset example draft to IESG for publication as standards track RFCs (except for example draft, submitted as Informational) | |
| MAR 03 | Conclude working group, unless ADs determine added work is needed |
GEOPRIV MINUTES
Minute Taker: Hannes Tschofenig
Chairs: Randall Gellens, Allison Mankin
Agenda Bashing
--------------
Intro
-----
Requirements document will be simplified a bit more (but has been quite a
bit already)
Location object not ready for last call
a number of non-working group documents to be discussed some to be
brought into working group.
geopriv core as a way into
geopriv using document
Document status - Chairs - 5 mins -
--------------------------------------
Make sure you have read:
draft-ietf-geopriv-reqs-03.txt
draft-ietf-geopriv-threat-analysis-00.txt
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lo-option-00.txt
draft-cuellar-geopriv-scenarios-03.txt
draft-morris-geopriv-core-01.txt
draft-peterson-geopriv-pres-00.txt
(also on our charter, but not refreshed, documents on http and html)
Requirements draft (Jorge Cuellar)
--------------------------------------
Brief review of WGLC changes on requirements document
Two new authors
New names for domain entities of the protocol; new abbreviations
The new terms are described on the slide
Henning Schulzrinne: The entities are logical entities.
Jorge Cuellar: True. They might be co-located.
James Kempf: Authorization is done at the Location Server
Jorge: yes
Q: The work is more general - there is not necessarily a
server-client architecture. (location intermediary)
Henning: Some people would like to get rid of the term server
Randall Gellens: Are the terms confusing as defined in the document?
Henning: Less loaded term wouldn't hurt
Jon Peterson: The term server is the only term that is not changed from the
previous version of the draft. It is perhaps not worth changing
anything anymore.
James Polk: The server is actually the controller. The server is the
appropriate term here
Comment: This draft has greatly improved. It looks good as it is.
Jorge: A peer-to-peer scenario does not contradict this notation here
Several: The LS is applying most rules, and particularly filtering the
location information, but In the minimum requirements the Location
Recipient is processing also some rules (do not distribute, do not store
longer than ..)
Geopriv/DHC Option (James Polk)
-----------------------------
- Original format proposed was presented
- Suggestion that a datum has to be included. 3 are currently
registered
- A main open issue: Based on the terms in the current requirements
document, DHCP may be seen not as an using protocol, but as a protocol that
acts before geopriv. Thus the location information passed here is not a LO,
but a "LCI (location configuration information)". Seen in this way, DHCP is
only gathering the location information to be used by the LG.
Q: Is LCI an object conveying location information.
A: Yes, but it does not contain security and policy information
There is some confusion about the DHCP information and the location
object definition in the requirements document
Henning: It might be helpful to indicate that this is not part of
geopriv. Unlike the other information where the info is available to the
entity - they just happen to be at two different physical entities. There
just need to be twodifferent definitions
Ted Hardie: Privacy and security requirements in the two cases are
different It might be valuable to explicitly state which are the privacy and
security requirements in each case
Jon: Jorge's picture describes where the geopriv object moves. It should
additionally be specified where the Location Generator obtains the
necessary information about the location information. It might be good for
the scenario
Henning: LCI ("Location Configuration Information") term should be
defined outside the DHCP draft since it is a useful concept
Allison: We should add it to the scenarios draft. Additionally we need to
add the security and privacy issues that Ted has mentioned
Henning: I also submitted a similar draft, but providing civil location
information via DHCP (instead of geo-location). It is easier to
generate this type of information. A street address conveys more the type of
location that people usually think of. It is useful (from security and
privacy perspective, and also for performance and simpler
functionality) to provide this information instead of using a
translator (which could translate geo-location information to civil
location information).
Jon: This sounds like a good idea
Jon: Who should do the conversion you just mentioned?
Henning: The database to do the conversion is large - there are only a few
companies doing this. The server could this do internally
(theoretically) but in reality you don't want to do this by yourself. You
don't want to keep track of all street changes. This type of
translation service may be expensive if you want to be always
accurate.
Henning: Hum on the DHCP draft?
Ted: Seems ok. The charter covers the draft of DHCP that James =
presented, this topic is not far from that one
Threat Analysis (Jon Peterson)
-----------------------
draft-ietf-geopriv-threat-analysis-00.txt
This work is done. We could do a WG last call
Randall gave Jon comments (on paper) during the presentation
Presence as a using protocol (Jon Peterson):
-------------------------------------------
Presentation about draft-peterson-geopriv-pres-00
Describes what a using protocol is and how it is location
information can be used in presence protocols
There is some similarity between presence and geopriv.
RFC2778/RFC779 defined a framework for presence
Presence is not the only way how location information can be
distributed. Emergency calls are another example where you simply
provide location information to the desired entity
Hence presence is only one example of using geopriv but not the only one
MIME/XML based data format: PIDF
(draft-ietf-impp-pidf-0x) This exact work has been done before. Hence it
would be good to reuse it instead of reinventing it
Henning: The presence itself is a delivery mechanism. We should not be
mislead by the presentation where presence is usually used
Jonathan Rosenberg: Rule stuff is the hardest stuff. Simple and sipping
working group is discussing these issues.
James Kempf: Take a look at the Japanese Phone system.
Jon: Jorge mentioned this usage already (codeword, token, password)
Allison: Identifiers can be pseudonymous for the presence
application?
Jon: I gave a link to a presence URI. It is very easy to get opaque URIs
Jonathan: The principle application of anonymous URIs (proposed in SIP).
Call centers offer some examples where this is useful. Identity
independent SIP URIs. This is a private draft
Allison: These things should be made more explicit
Henning: Publication: Notion of an anonymous contact address. Usually all
have a user@domain characteristic. Hence there are no random numbers and
globally unique. Hence there is a pseudonym and a domain name
Jon: How many people think that this work is useful for geopriv WG?
Randall: Work on security and policy (location object) has to be done
Jon: There can be parallell activities: Work on security and policies at the
same time of working on an using protocol
Allison: Area directors should decide whether this should become a
working group document if the IESG agrees to expand the charter
Ted: Hum?
Group: Acceptance
Geopriv Elements & Fields (John Morris)
--------------------------------------
ftp://67.cdt.org/pub/ietf-geopriv-03mar-elements.ppt
Description what requirements document says about specific fields. Some of
them are optional.
Henning: Optional might mean
a) default value assumed
b) not defined
John Morris: needs to be defined
Limited privacy rules:
draft-Morris-geopriv-core-01.txt
Two different groups of rules
Henning: A little bit confused about the human-readable rule. This
causes a number of problems (e.g. internationalization problem)
John Morris: I am not pushing this requirement or the wording. That
language came from discussion with others. It needs to be discussed
further
Randall: I had the same concern with the document
John Morris: Instead of saying that some rules are only machine
readable, we may want to say that some rules are never presented to a
human, those rules are passed only between two servers
Randall: It is appropriate to have rules to an end user. These rules do not
need to be formatted as human readable within the LO, but made readable
when presented to the human
Jonathan: This is only about information rendering. It is misguided to
include any display information. This is a separate problem
Henning: Different formulation: Specify information by value or
reference
John Morris: Some rules are too complex to have it specified in the
location object. In this case there should be a external reference to
these rules then if they are not included.
Henning: If you cannot express all exceptions then you might want to
include additional things. (Because you don't want to encode all human
relationships).
In that case however, you cannot sue someone
Ted: How can I configure my device based on these rules? Henning should
send text to the list
John: We need these issues soon
General discussion of protocols - Chairs and AD - up to 30 mins
---------------------------------------------
Randall: What should be included in the location object and what
shouldn't?
Henning: Doing the easy things first. Make it extensible. Not delaying
everything until the tough problems are solved
Jon: would like to make a first proposal (based on PIDF from IMPP)
Allison: Do they contain security?
Jon: yes as part of smime. more advanced stuff can be done at the XML
level
Randall: Who is going to work on a geopriv location object? Please send
your names to Allison and Randall.
|