Last Modified: 2004-10-15
|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|
|RFC3694||I||Threat Analysis of the geopriv Protocol|
|RFC3825||Standard||Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information|
Wednesday, November 10 at 1300-1500
Allison Mankin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Randall Gellens <email@example.com>
Andrew Newton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Scribe: Brian Rosen
1. Agenda Bashing
Agenda was accepted as proposed
2. Working Group Document Status
a. Status of documents sent to the IESG/RFC Editor
draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo approved by IESG (IANA actions completed)
draft-ietf-geopriv-pres approved by IESG as informational
b. Status of documents in the working group.
WGLC ended on 11/3
c. Solicitation of documents in working group last call.
In WGLC until Nov 22
One comment was received from the floor: it was suggested that the document would be easier to read if its many acronyms were replaced with full meanings. Henning agreed.
d. Status of related documents
The chairs asked if it was the intent of the authors to make this a working group item. After some discussion and explanation by Jonathan Rosenberg on its relation to SIMPLE, Hannes Tschofenig signified that the authors of the draft would seek adoption by the working group at a future date.
e. Status of related groups
-Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ECRIT).
Jon Peterson explained the purpose of the ECRIT BoF and its relationship with GEOPRIV and urged meeting participants to attend.
3. Milestone Discussion
Andy Newton suggested the following new milestones for the group:
Submit draft-ietf-geopriv-policy as proposed standard in Jan., 2005
Submit draft-ietf-geopriv-radius as proposed standard in Feb., 2005
Confer with SIP WG on SIP using protocol draft as proposed standard in Feb., 2005
Close WG with final meeting at IETF 62 in Mar., 2005
Brian Rosen alerted the group of the intentions of NENA to submit a requirements document for extensions to PDIF-LO, and that such a document would need a working group. The intent is to have a requirements draft by March, 2005.
4. Discussion of Geospatial Location issues in
The chairs expressed concern that the IETF does not have enough experience in geospatial location to provide adequate peer review of
the geospatial location algorithms in draft-ietf-geopriv-policy. They suggest getting at least two known experts to provide written review or modify the document to use a pre-existing established standard.
Henning Schulzrinne gave a presentation on how to simplify the geospatial location treating altitude as a separate coordinate. The room then discussed the complexity issues involved with geospatial location and 3D coordinates. It was suggested that geospatial and civil coordinates could be combined to provide the necessary detail. However, many in the room believed that the geospatial location needed an altitude, and many expressed that civil coordinates are often too vague for some purposes.
After discussion, the chairs requested a hum on the issue. The chairs asked the room to provide hums on three proposals: 1) to drop altitude entirely, 2) decouple altitude from x,y, or 3) leave the geospatial location in the document as is [all 3 coordinates]. The consensus of the room was to keep altitude but decouple it.
5. Discussion of draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-01
Hannes Tschofeniq gave a presentation on the newly combined radius drafts. This version is updated to match PIDF-LO fields, splits policy into basic rules which MUST be implemented and extended rules which SHOULD be implemented, and provides a "note-well" URI. The extended ruleset is also a reference due to space limitation in RADIUS. And the location type list re-uses values from RPID.
The room then discussed whether the target of the location was the user or some other related network element. Many were concerned with privacy implications while others stated they were attempting to address requirements for accounting and taxation. The chairs noted that this issue could not be solved in the meeting and discussions of it needed to be taken to the working group mailing list. They asked Hannes to bring this issue to the list.
The chairs also instructed the authors to separate the IANA registry for location types into a separate document.
6. Any Other Business
Henning Schulzrinne started a discussion on non-interoperability of results in PIDF-LO due to too much flexibility in GML. It was suggested that a small BCP draft could be written to fix the problem. It was also suggested that the problem could be fixed Authors-48 period of PIDF-LO before it becomes an RFC. The chairs and AD expressed concern and suggested the scope of change needed to be known before such an action could even be considered.