GEOPRIV @ IETF 65 Co-chairs: Andrew Newton, Allison Mankin, Randall Gellens Scribe: Tom Taylor 1) Agenda Bashing (5 min) 2) Document Status (15 min) - IETF Last Call o draft-ietf-geopriv-common-policy Martin Thompson raised a point about identity that had been discussed on the mailing list. Hannes Tshofenig provided further elaboration. The problem is a matter of extending the identity object to cover new name spaces. The discussion was taken off-line, but Martin will post a proposed resolution to the general list. Henning Schulzrinne also spoke to it. Discussion about how much work it would take to settle the point. Martin thinks it is a one-week effort. Hannes will submit an update next week, then see if there are any further concerns. -------------- - Working Group Last Call o draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile Held up by a new issue. o draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo Allison Mankin noted that the DHC working group was looking at a timezone datum and that GEOPRIV should take it under consideration. There was some discussion about timezone being only related to time or being a region. James Polk noted that the DHC working group had quit working on the timezone issue, and Henning Schulzrinne noted that RPID already had a timezone datum. The chairs concluded that this document was not ready for working group last call. -------------- -In IESG Review o draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-05 Ted Hardie explained what had to be done to clear the discuss, and these changes affect RPID since the question is on the scope of the location registry. The change would need new text in RPID document as suggested by Henning Schulzrinne, and a new IETF last call. Jon Peterson will propose to IESG that another IETF last call is not necessary. -------------- -In progress o draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-00 Rohan Mahy noted a few open issues, specifically named regions, useage of GML, and the number of filters in the document. Henning schulzrinne suggested that the document restrict the usage of XPath has had been done in other GEOPRIV documents. ------------------------ 3) Geodetic Shapes for PIDF-LO (15 min) draft-thomson-geopriv-geo-shape Martin Thomson Martin Thomson gave an update on this draft addressing concerns between interoperability with formats in this document and other GEOPRIV documents. He identified open issues with shape naming, aggregrate shapes, and movement. The participants in the room discussed the number of shapes being specified and the needs for specifying a minimal set vs. profiling this document for other use cases. The participants also discussed issues of movement and velocity. The conclusion was to remove aggregate shapes and velocity semantics. Rohan Mahy noted that 3-D objects are sufficiently simple to implement that they should be included. Martin noted he would revise the document, then be assess it for readiness for working group last call. ----------------------------------- 3) HELD Sighting (15 min) draft-winterbottom-held-sighting Martin Thomson, James Winterbottom presenting. James Winterbottom noted that the draft authors had split the draft up into functional pieces as had been asked of them at the last IETF meeting. He noted that there were three request messages: locationRequest - request location or assert a location and have it validated. Location is returned as PIDF-LO. Ted Hardie noted that this protocol was not a sighting protocol because it returned wholy formed PIDF-LO documents. Jon Peterson noted that this was reasonably close to the location configuration protocols already approved by this working group. Ted noted that it possible to use a full-fedge GEOPRIV using protocol as a configuration protocol. Rohan Mahy pointed out that such functionality at layer 7 was valuable becuase of a disconnect in SIP with Lociation Information Servers being able to link content to SIP AoRs. Henning Schulzrinne noted that there were three distinct types of functionality under discussion: a protocol for a client to get the location to itself, a protocol for a client to tell another host where to get the client's location, and a protocol for a client to find the location of another host. John Schnizlein noted that this proposal did not make it clear how discovery of the server end point would be accomplished. ------------------------------------------ 4) Location URI (15 min) draft-winterbottom-location-uri James Winterbottom presented James presented his analysis of where location-by-value applicable, where location-by-reference applicable. ------------------------------------------------------ 5) Location Configuration Protocol (15 min) draft-linsner-geopriv-lcp Marc Linsner Marc Linsner presented the motivation for the proposal. There was discussion among participants about the usage of a layer 7 protocol between the last mile and the layer 3 network. Marc noted that he did not intend to exclude that as a possibility. Marc described location flow within this proposal. James Winterbottom objected to the nature of how the proposal determines the correct client with which to attach location. Ted Hardie agreed that an IP source address was not enough information to be the key to a location database. Jon Peterson agreed and noted that the IESG would likely not approve of such a proposal on these grounds. Rohan: LCP really a L7 protocol. No matter. Not practical for network with small bandwidth -- need to offer different granularity to various interested parties -- others probably want finer resolution than target himself/herself. Henning: preferabley authorize someone else to publish in your name -- nothing to do with current application. ------------------------------------------------------- 6) General Discussion of Layer 7 Configuration/Sighting Protocols Led by Andrew Newton Hannes Tschofenig noted that there was a lot of confusion on this topic because there were two proposal attempting to accomplish the same thing but with different motives. Rohan Mahy noted that there was a need to provide various granularity based on bandwidth of network. Henning Schulzrinne noted that with only a MAC or IP address, this is difficult for a client to determine. He also noted that there were varying reasons for the motivations of the proposals and that each sub-motivation needed to pulled out and stated for the purposes of clarity. Brian Rosen proposed that there be separate proposals for fixed and mobile use cases. Rohan agreed, but Henning and Jon disagreed. James Polk noted that there was no way of knowing how many hosts in the future would be mobile and how many would be fixed. Henning stated that there was a need to answer the fundamental question that a source IP address would be enough of a key to base location sighting upon. Steve Norreys noted that there are trust issues based upon the network stack layers that must be resolved to answer that question. Barbara Stark noted that other approaches were problematic with regards to NATs, and that a layer 7 protocol would have the same security properties as DCHP. Jon Peterson proposed that a document specifying the requirements for a layer 7 location configuration or sighting protocol be developed in order to facilitate a proper discussion. The particpants of the room then discussed the viability of solutions that required upgrades of many network elements. Ted Hardie noted that the IETF works on solutions that work across the Internet and cannot restrict itself to solutions for very specific network environments. James Polk noted that if customers want new features, they will have to upgrade hardware. Barbara Stark disagreed with this mandate. The co-chairs ask the participants of the room if a layer 7 location configuration protocol requriements document was needed. They asked the room to hum in favor, and the concensus of the room was that such a document was needed. 7) Any Other Business None.