Subject: Re: Questions and comments regarding geopriv-reqs-02

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 21:11:55 -0800

James,

Thanks for the detailed comments.  I understand from the
authors that they will have some replies for you soon.

The chairs will extend the WGLC period for a bit.

This will also serve to give some time for work on simplification
of some sections of the document.

I would like to reply to one of your points:

> this document with
> define Location Information...' or '... this document will define how
> location information will be specified in a uniform manner...'.  Why has
> this topic area been omitted?

The document is the geopriv requirements document - emphasis on the
privacy requirements for the protocol - and thus its scope doesn't
include the structure of the location information.  Some points about
locations are present because they touch on disclosure issues.

The protocol design work to come now must determine on a
well-architected answer to minimum-mandatory to implement form and
manner of reference for alternative forms.  I am sure we have
expertise among us for doing this well.

Allison

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:15:20 -0600

Allison

Thanks for the note -- comments in-line below

>of some sections of the document.

I understand

> > this topic area been omitted?

The first "with" should be a "will" - but I believe you understood the 
intent of my comment.

>include the structure of the location information.

I understand and agree the emphasis on privacy requirements within this 
group. I also understand the lack of structure on location information. But 
I was and am still concerned about the lack of certain aspects of location 
that could (and should) have been mentioned without detracting from the 
stated privacy emphasis.

The area of the ID I'm referring to above is the Abstract and Introduction 
(which set the tone and goals of the doc). Both should explicitly mention 
the intent of the WG as solving privacy (which it does), and location 
(which is loosely mentioned only latter in the ID - but not as a goal). I 
believe one of the goals of Geopriv is to define the format (but not 
necessarily in this ID) of Location Information Fields (to ensure 
interoperability), and certain fields we know will be listed as either 
mandatory or optional. It should have the not so lofty goal of defining 
what is to be expected in the Location Object as the currently known (or 
knowable) minimum set of Location Fields that should be present.

An example of a word that doesn't appear in the core Requirements ID is: 
"datum"

We don't need to mention which datum to use (although I believe most of us 
agree which one should be the default used), but the concept of choosing 
"a" datum as default in all LOs should be mentioned in the requirements ID, 
IMO; else interoperability is threatened from the start.

One new question to the above: do you see there being a separate Location 
Information Field Requirements ID to augment this core reqs ID?

>Some points about
>manner of reference for alternative forms.

I agree with this approach completely - and I would suggest we take it one 
step further by including text in the reqs ID of what we know is going to 
be in that "...minimum-mandatory to implement form and manner of reference 
for alternative forms..." as well as how the alternatives can be addressed 
(extensibility and how optional fields are even inserted/included into a 
Location Reply to an authenticated/authorized Location request).

>I am sure we have

I'm sure we do as well.

>Allison

cheers,
James

               *************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than
                          they are willing to allow for others"