< draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-16.txt		draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-17.txt >
	GEOPRIV H. Schulzrinne, Ed.		GEOPRIV H. Schulzrinne, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Columbia University		Internet-Draft Columbia University
	Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig, Ed.		Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig, Ed.
	Expires: December 17, 2008 Nokia Siemens Networks		Expires: December 28, 2008 Nokia Siemens Networks
	J. Morris		J. Morris
	CDT		CDT
	J. Cuellar		J. Cuellar
	Siemens		Siemens
	J. Polk		J. Polk
	Cisco		Cisco
	June 15, 2008		June 26, 2008
	Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences		Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences
	for Location Information		for Location Information
	draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-16.txt		draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-17.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes		have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2008.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2008.
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines an authorization policy language for		This document defines an authorization policy language for
	controlling access to location information. It extends the Common		controlling access to location information. It extends the Common
	Policy authorization framework to provide location-specific access		Policy authorization framework to provide location-specific access
	control. More specifically, this document defines condition elements		control. More specifically, this document defines condition elements
	specific to location information in order to restrict access based on		specific to location information in order to restrict access based on
	the current location of the Target. Furthermore, it offers location-		the current location of the Target. Furthermore, it offers location-
	specific transformation elements to reduce the granularity of the		specific transformation elements to reduce the granularity of the
	skipping to change at page 15, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 30 ¶
	The schema of the <provide-geo> element is defined in Section 8.		The schema of the <provide-geo> element is defined in Section 8.
	For each rule in the policy specification containing a <provide-geo>		For each rule in the policy specification containing a <provide-geo>
	element, the LS chooses a circle with a radius F given by the		element, the LS chooses a circle with a radius F given by the
	'radius' attribute of the <provide-geo> element. The center of the		'radius' attribute of the <provide-geo> element. The center of the
	circle is chosen randomly, under the constraint that the circle MUST		circle is chosen randomly, under the constraint that the circle MUST
	contain the Target's location, which may be a point or another		contain the Target's location, which may be a point or another
	location shape. In response to queries matching this rule, the LS		location shape. In response to queries matching this rule, the LS
	MUST return a shape containing this circle; while the returned shape		MUST return a shape containing this circle; while the returned shape
	may change from one query to another, the chosen circle remains		may change from one query to another, the chosen circle remains
	constant. An LS may, for example, store the location of the center		constant as long as the Target's location (whether a point or a
	or compute it based on a hash function that includes the target's		region) remains completely within the circle. An LS may, for
	identity.		example, store the location of the center or compute it based on a
			hash function that includes the target's identity. If the Target's
			location moves within the chosen circle, the LS MAY choose a new
			random center point, but when the Target's location moves outside the
			chosen circle, the LS MUST choose a new random center point.
	The above-described procedure aims to satisfy the following design		The above-described procedure aims to satisfy the following design
	goals:		goals:
	1. The circle returned must contain the actual location of the		1. The circle returned must contain the actual location of the
	Target.		Target.
	2. In general, no point in the circle must be more likely than		2. In general, no point in the circle must be more likely than
	others to contain the Target.		others to contain the Target.
	skipping to change at page 30, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 30, line 30 ¶
	[4] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV		[4] Winterbottom, J., Thomson, M., and H. Tschofenig, "GEOPRIV
	PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and		PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and
	Recommendations", draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-11 (work		Recommendations", draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-11 (work
	in progress), February 2008.		in progress), February 2008.
	[5] OpenGIS, "US National Imagery and Mapping Agency, "Department		[5] OpenGIS, "US National Imagery and Mapping Agency, "Department
	of Defense (DoD) World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84), Third		of Defense (DoD) World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84), Third
	Edition, NIMA TR8350.2", , January 2000.		Edition, NIMA TR8350.2", , January 2000.
	[6] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location Format		[6] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location Format
	for PIDF-LO", draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-07 (work in		for Presence Information Data Format Location Object
	progress), December 2007.		(PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008.
	13.2. Informative References		13.2. Informative References
	[7] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.		[7] Cuellar, J., Morris, J., Mulligan, D., Peterson, J., and J.
	Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.		Polk, "Geopriv Requirements", RFC 3693, February 2004.
	[8] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object		[8] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
	Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.		Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
	[9] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence		[9] Day, M., Rosenberg, J., and H. Sugano, "A Model for Presence
	skipping to change at page 32, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 32, line 27 ¶
	We would like to thank Christian Guenther for his help with an		We would like to thank Christian Guenther for his help with an
	earlier version of this document. Furthermore, we would like to		earlier version of this document. Furthermore, we would like to
	thank Johnny Vrancken for his document reviews in September 2006,		thank Johnny Vrancken for his document reviews in September 2006,
	December 2006 and January 2007. James Winterbottom provided a		December 2006 and January 2007. James Winterbottom provided a
	detailed review in November 2006. Richard Barnes gave a detailed		detailed review in November 2006. Richard Barnes gave a detailed
	review in February 2008.		review in February 2008.
	This document uses text from [15]. Therefore, we would like to thank		This document uses text from [15]. Therefore, we would like to thank
	Martin Thomson for his work in [15]. We would also like to thank		Martin Thomson for his work in [15]. We would also like to thank
	Martin Thomson, Matt Lepinski and Richard Barnes for their comments		Martin Thomson, Matt Lepinski and Richard Barnes for their comments
	regarding the geodetic location transformation procedure.		regarding the geodetic location transformation procedure. Richard
			provided us with a detailed text proposal.
	We would like to thank Dan Romascanu, Yoshiko Chong and Jari		We would like to thank Dan Romascanu, Yoshiko Chong and Jari
	Urpalainen for their last call comments.		Urpalainen for their last call comments.
	Finally, we would like to thank the following individuals for their		Finally, we would like to thank the following individuals for their
	feedback as part of the IESG, GenArt, and SecDir review: Jari Arkko,		feedback as part of the IESG, GenArt, and SecDir review: Jari Arkko,
	Eric Gray, Russ Housley, Carl Reed, Martin Thomson, Lisa Dusseault,		Eric Gray, Russ Housley, Carl Reed, Martin Thomson, Lisa Dusseault,
	Chris Newman, Jon Peterson, Sam Hartman, Cullen Jennings, Tim Polk,		Chris Newman, Jon Peterson, Sam Hartman, Cullen Jennings, Tim Polk,
	and Brian Rosen.		and Brian Rosen.
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		15 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/