2.1.4 Geographic Location/Privacy (geopriv)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       http://ecotroph.net/geopriv -- Additional GEOPRIV Web Page
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 59th IETF Meeting in Seoul, Korea. It may now be out-of-date.

Last Modified: 2004-02-12

Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Applications Area Director(s):
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Applications Area Advisor:
Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: geopriv@ietf.org
To Subscribe: geopriv-request@ietf.org
In Body: subscribe
Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/geopriv
Description of Working Group:
As more and more resources become available on the Internet, some applications need to acquire geographic location information about certain resources or entities. These applications include navigation, emergency services, management of equipment in the field, and other location-based services.

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.

Goals and Milestones:
Done  Discuss initial geopriv scenarios and application requirements i-d's
Done  Discuss initial geographic location privacy and security requirements i-d.
Done  Initial i-d on geographic information protocol design, including privacy and security techniques.
Done  Review charter and initial i-ds with AD, and have IESG consider rechartering if necessary.
Done  Submit geopriv scenarios and application requirements to IESG for publicaiton as Informational RFCs
Done  Submit security/privacy requirements I-D to IESG for publication as Informational RFC.
Feb 04  Submit PIDF-LO basic geopriv object draft as a PS
Feb 04  Initial Common Rules base object draft
Feb 04  Initial Common Ruels GEOPRIV object draft
Mar 04  Submit Common Rules base object draft as a PS
Mar 04  Submit Common Rules GEOPRIV object draft as a PS
Apr 04  Submit DHCP Civil draft as a PS
Jun 04  Initial Geo-tag/Geo-Header draft
Jun 04  Initial HTTP using protocol draft
Jun 04  Initial SIP using protocol draft
Jul 04  Initial Using protocol guideline
Nov 04  Submit Geo-tag/Geo-Header draft as a PS
Nov 04  Submit HTTP using protocol draft as a PS
Nov 04  Submit SIP using protocol draft as a PS
Nov 04  Submit Using protocol guidelines draft as a BCP
Nov 04  Conclude working group
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-reqs-04.txt
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option-03.txt
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-01.txt
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-01.txt
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-01.txt
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-00.txt
  • - draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-00.txt
  • No Request For Comments

    Current Meeting Report

    Minutes of the GEOPRIV Working Group Session at the 59th IETF Meeting
    	Andrew Newton
    	Allison Mankin
    	Randall Gellens
    	Ted Hardie
    	Scott Hollenbeck
    	Randall Gellens
    Jabber Logs:
    1) James Polk mentions that 
    draft-ietf-sipping-location-requirements-00.txt may meet 
    GEOPRIVÕs milestone for a SIP Using Protocol draft.  He requests that 
    the working group look it over.  Andy Newton will ask the question of the 
    working group mailing list.
    2) Henning Schulzrinne discusses the DHCP Civil draft 
    (draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-01.txt).  He notes that it is 
    complimentary to the groupÕs DHCP LI draft, points out changes to it, and 
    feels that it is close to working group last call.  James Polk 
    indicates that it is "LCI" (location configuration information) instead 
    of"LO" (location object).  A request is made of "new", non-US 
    participants to be check that the address format is useable.  A concern is 
    brought by Allison Mankin on the work load impact this draft may have for 
    the IANA.  Henning notes that it would not be too high at all.
    3) Jon Peterson presents 
    draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-00.txt.  Jon notes that it will be updated again to 
    make it less SIMPLE centric.
    4) Jon Peterson presents 
    draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-02.txt.  Jon notes that the requirements 
    section has been removed.  Hannes Tschofenig points out that it is 
    difficult to understand which GEOPRIV requirements are met by PIDF-LO and 
    which are met by a using protocol, and he suggests documenting this in 
    draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-00.txt.  Jon disagrees with the suggestion 
    because it would make that draft protocol centric, which is a 
    non-goal.  James suggests covering the requirements in 
    pping-location-requirements-00.txt, with both Henning and Jon 
    objecting.  This is followed by a discussion regarding a new SIPPING 
    requirement for a source type of location information.  It is 
    mentioned that requirements for the source type are not fully known and 
    waiting on them would hold up PDIF-LO.  Jon suggests that this could be 
    added as an extension.  Andy asks that the discussion of this issue be 
    taken to the list.
    5) Henning presents the Common Policy drafts 
    (draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-01.txt and 
    draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy-00.txt).  There is some confusion 
    regarding distribution/retention rules. The room has few comments and 
    Henning asks the group to review the drafts and send comments to the list.
    6) Watanabe-san and Kurisu-san present the GLI system 
    (http:www.gli.jp).  There are no comments or questions from the room.
    7) Farid Adrangi presents 
    ation-information-attribut-00.txt.  The room discusses the 
    implications of RADIUS trust models on the privacy of location objects.  
    There are many concerns about the trust model inherent in RADIUS 
    relationships not being relative to the privacy of the end user.
    8) Hannes presents 
    draft-jones-radius-geopriv-00.txt and discusses the merging of the two 
    drafts.  Again there is concern from the room about the privacy 
    concerns of end users and concern regarding the bonding of user 
    identities and authentication mechanisms.  There is also concern about 
    special casing requirements for this work and the necessity to properly 
    analyze use cases.  It is also mentioned that the verbose XML will 
    degrade performance of RADIUS and there will be a need for 


    GEOPRIV PIDF Motivation
    Access Network Location & Operational Ownership Information
    Location Information in Radius
    Conveying Civil Location Information in DHCP
    GEOPRIV Policy