GEOPRIV Meeting Minutes IETF 67, San Diego, CA 6 November 2006 Co-Chairs: Andrew Newton Allison Mankin Randall Gellens Scribe: Alexander Mayrhofer Jabber Logs: http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/geopriv/2006-11-06.html 1) Agenda Bashing http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-6.pdf Andrew asked if there were any suggested modifications to the agenda. None were offered. The agenda was accepted. 2) Note Well http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html Andrew notified the room that IETF meetings were covered by the IETF Note Well. 3) Document Status http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-6.pdf Andrew presented the document status. It was noted by Henning that draft-ietf-geopriv-dhc-civil would be republished as a separate RFC or noted in the RFC errata because a unique IANA assignment had been botched in the publication process. 4) Milestones The chairs mentioned that they are working on updated milestones and charter text, and that both would be sent to the mailing list in the near future. There were no comments on this topic. 5) L7LCP Problem Statement and Requirements draft-tschofenig-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps Hannes Tschofenig http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-0/sld1.htm Hannes presented the latest draft which reflects the results of the GEOPRIV L7LCP Design Team. Hannes noted in the next steps that the design team wanted the documented accepted as a working group item and last called shortly thereafter. Brian Rosen noted that he didn't believe the design team had accomplished its goal, but that closing the design team and turning this document over to the working group at the point was the correct course of action. Andrew asked the room if they felt that draft-tschofenig-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps should be accepted as a working group item. This was the sense of the room. 6) A Location Reference Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-locationref Henning Schulzrinne http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-1/sld1.htm Henning presented his draft. Rohan Mahy noted many comments he had sent to the list regarding this draft, and specifically allowing for a time specification. Henning noted that was possible and it would not fundamentally change the specification. Rohan also suggested the major problem with the approach was that it included presence. Henning noted that the concept would work with any type of event package. Rohan then noted that he believed there were security considerations with the pawn ticket mechanism. Henning noted it as an open issue. Ted Hardie noted that there was a standard on pawn ticket URLs, which Henning noted he had not seen. Ted also suggested that it may be worthwhile separating the first SUBSCRIBE in the first scenario from the other transactions. Henning and Ted agreed to take this discussion off-line as it required the description of a rather complex set of interactions. James Winterbottom commented that the acquisition mechanism was tied to SIP and that such a mechanism would be useful outside of SIP and in other protocols. He also noted that there were no mechanisms to indicate the type of location determination needed when multiple mechanisms are available. Henning noted he had not considered that as a feature and would give it consideration. 7) HELD-04 draft-thomson-geopriv-held-capabilities draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions draft-thomson-geopriv-held-unaptr draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-dhcp-discovery James Winterbottom http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-2/sld1.htm James presented the latest changes to HELD. Brian Rosen noted that the L7LCP design team did not require many of these features, and that any of these features could be added to any protocol. He noted that the new features are not protocol specific. James responded that the IETF should pick a protocol that already has these features and that works. There was then a discussion about general progress in this area. Andrew noted that progress was indeed slow, but that all of these concepts were new when introduced and it was very difficult for participants to digest them. Andrew noted that while progress was slow, there was progress. There was also discussion about the L7LCP requirements resulting in only one protocol or more multiple protocols. Brian noted that the more protocols that exist, the more interoperability issues will come to light. Ted Hardie noted that if only one protocol is to exist, then that should be a requirement. Brian Rosen commented that isolating the mechanism from the protocol would be helpful. 8) Dynamic Feature Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic Henning Schulzrinne http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-7/sld1.htm Henning presented features to extend PIDF-LO for motion. Rohan Mahy noted that there were no requirements for this work and that it was perhaps pre-mature. Henning noted that it was similar to the work done with Radius. Rohan noted that the L7LCP work should have a higher priority than this work. Henning noted he intended to have the working group adopt the work at some point. 9) Binary to Decimal Conversion for Location Configuration Information draft-schnizlein-geopriv-binary-lci John Schnizlein http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-3/sld1.htm John presented his draft on binary to decimal conversion of the values from RFC 3825. James Winterbottom noted that this draft does update RFC 3825 and therefore must be a standards track document. John noted the intent of the draft was simply to clarify 3825. Ted noted that if there were no incorrect implementations, then the IETF simply needs to publish this information. Hannes noted that he felt this was a good, first step. He also noted that he would like to see some GML clarifications, as well. The room then discussed how to move forward on this document, as an Informational or a standards track update to RFC 3825. Andrew asked the room if the document should be accepted as a working group item for consideration as a proposed standard update to RFC 3825, and noted that the sense of the room was to move forward in this manner. 10) A Geopriv Registry for Location-based Error Response Codes draft-polk-geopriv-location-based-error-registry James Polk http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-4/sld1.htm James presented his draft on a registry for location conveyance error codes. Henning noted that error semantics are typically protocol specific and this would not carry over from one protocol to another. Hannes noted that the attempt in LoST to use HTTP error codes resulted in some being drops and others added that did not exist in HTTP. Keith noted that the problem being solved was not clear. He stated that he thought the issue was about communicating errors from a SIP proxy to a SIP UA when the errors have resulted from a LoST query at the SIP proxy. Randall noted that integrity of location information between protocols was a good thing, and that error codes made sense as well. Hannes then noted that there are probably privacy related issues then, and therefore it may be necessary to consider more than errors. Henning commented that he felt such error mechanics had three options: 1) success/failure, 2) translate error codes between protocols, or 3) provide generic content to only be interpretted by the end points. 11) A Report from The W3C Privacy Workshop Hannes Tschofenig http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/geopriv-5/sld1.htm Hannes presented on his presentation of the GEOPRIV work at the recent W3C workshop on privacy. He then solicited for opinions on how GEOPRIV should interpret the feedback. Andrew noted that not all of the feedback was specific to GEOPRIV, but some was more specific to other IETF working groups.