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.
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.