geopriv@conference.ietf.jabber.com - 2002/11/18
[09:11] %% logger has arrived.
[09:17] %% logger has arrived.
[09:24] %% logger has arrived.
[09:31] %% logger has arrived.
[11:50] %% logger has arrived.
[17:39] %% randy has arrived.
[17:51] <randy> Discussion of Morros' scenarios draft is first
[17:54] <randy> AM: Anyone have any new scenarious to be added?
[17:54] <randy> (no one)
[17:54] <randy> AM: Hum if you want this to be a WG draft
[17:55] <randy> (no one hummed)
[17:55] <randy> AM: HUm if you don't want this to be a WG draft
[17:55] <randy> AM: This will be an Informational WG draft
[17:55] <randy> AM: Hum if you want it to be a WG Info draft
[17:55] <randy> (reasonable hum)
[17:55] <randy> AM: Hum if you don't want it to be a WG draft
[17:55] <randy> (no one hummed)
[17:57] <randy> Now discussion of Requirements draft
[17:58] <randy> Issue 25: Emergency Calls
[17:58] %% mrose has arrived.
[17:59] <randy> Issue: What if handset (as opposed to call ctr) can't be authenticated?
[18:00] <randy> RC: Use default policy
[18:00] <randy> Comment: Always going to be these issues. There is only so much that can be done. We don't need to worry so much about it.
[18:01] <randy> RC: Going over issues in order of importance:
[18:01] <randy> RC: Issue 13: Fields in location object.
[18:02] <randy> (Issue 26/Requirement 13)
[18:04] <randy> Comment: Req 2 is confusing. Mandatory vs Optional.
[18:05] <randy> Comment: This field hadn't been discussed or agreed before. Doesn't make sense for some SIP phones.
[18:06] <randy> Comment: 'mandatory to Implement' is too fuzy. Could mean don't crash if receive it.
[18:07] <randy> Comment: Can't test this requirement.
[18:09] <randy> Rat-hole. Precendent for mandatory-to-implement in apps protocols.
[18:09] <randy> Allison: Draft doesn't specify contents of object.
[18:09] <randy> Comment: Never saw any email with this in it.
[18:10] <randy> Comment: page 15, req 2 specifies some fields that must be supported.
[18:11] <randy> Fields: loc data trype, timing, policy field (may be ptr)
[18:12] %% smb@research.att.com has arrived.
[18:12] <randy> Issue 17: delete item by this date
[18:13] <randy> *** Is anyone in the room? ****
[18:13] <mrose> i'm waiting from another meeting
[18:14] <randy> Issue 29: full policy: perhaps.
[18:14] <randy> Multiple location issue: not in scope of requirements document.
[18:14] <smb@research.att.com> I'm here, giving it some attention while in ipsec.
[18:15] <randy> *** it would really help me if someone else could take over Jabber scribe ***
[18:16] <mrose> you're the only guy physically there, but go ahead and attend to other matters...i can catch up after the meeting...thanks!
[18:17] <randy> *** I'll try and keep it up, but I may miss things ***
[18:17] <randy> Time of sighting, time to live
[18:17] <randy> Who defines identiies?
[18:18] <randy> RC: Out of scope (see 9.7)
[18:18] <randy> (Issue 20)
[18:18] %% NedFreed has arrived.
[18:19] <randy> Issue 15: no provision for false location requirement
[18:19] %% NedFreed has left.
[18:21] <randy> Issue 27: Single Packet Exchange: out of scope
[18:22] <randy> (Windows computer w/ slides needs to be rebooted)
[18:25] <randy> RC: Personal opinion is we'll use XML
[18:27] <randy> Comment: we need this requirement to avoid people thinking geopriv can't meet their needs
[18:28] <randy> AM: Some protocol requirements are not here because we don't understand them well enough
[18:30] <randy> Comment: Having it in the document captures discussion that has taken place so far.
[18:31] <randy> Issue 18, 19: "Generic policies" (used by LoSi)
[18:31] <randy> Issue 28 (Multicast Issue): Closed
[18:32] <randy> Issues 21, 22: "Group or role identifiers": Out of scope
[18:32] * smb@research.att.com has changed the subject to: http://www.jabber.com/chatbot/logs/conference.ietf.jabber.com/geopriv/
[18:33] <randy> Running out of time. Rest of the issues are closed and we need to move on.
[18:33] <randy> AM: Can we can this to WG last call? Hum please.
[18:33] <randy> (moderate humming)
[18:33] <randy> AM: Hum if we can't.
[18:33] <randy> (no humming)
[18:34] <randy> AM: OK, we're ready for WG last call on Req document. Now we can progress towards protocol work.
[18:36] <randy> John Morris: draft...core... came out of discussions on Req draft. We rejected the approach that no rules go in the object, and also that all rules go in. Issue is do we have maybe 1 or 2, or do we have 3-5 or what?
[18:36] %% aamelnikov has arrived.
[18:38] <randy> JM: Jon Peterson was concerned with as many as 7 rules being included or being needed,
[18:38] %% jis has arrived.
[18:38] <randy> JM: Rules A&B can be easily understood by humans, not so for C,D,E. RUle F is a little more articuable. Rule G may not be a rule.
[18:39] %% Jeff has arrived.
[18:40] <randy> Rules D-E would only be supported by location server to another location server.
[18:40] %% Jeff has left.
[18:40] <randy> To an ult. loc. recip don't want to send rules C-E.
[18:40] <randy> Comment: compare to privacy work in W3C.
[18:42] <randy> JM: P3P origin may have covered, but as implemented is very content-server centric, not user-centric.
[21:08] %% logger has arrived.
[21:44] %% logger has arrived.