Subject: New ID on Location Information Considerations

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:13:09 -0500

Jorge and I have written an Internet Draft addressing the Location 
Information that will/should/might be conveyed within a Geopriv Location 
Object (LO). This document is to start referencable discussions on what can 
be included (regarding the Geopriv Target) in the LO.

This effort is more or less independent from the privacy and security 
efforts that are the primary focus of this WG, but we feel these 
discussions should take place among those of us interested in such aspects 
of Geopriv

The following is the abstract:

Abstract

    This document describes the Geopriv Location Data Fields of the
    Location Object that MUST be present under what conditions, which
    fields SHOULD be present, and which MAY be present.  This document
    does not address the privacy and security requirements of the
    GEOPRIV Protocol or the privacy and security requirements of the
    GEOPRIV LO Using Protocol.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-geopriv-location-data-00.txt

comments are encouraged

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                    The answer is "42", what's the question?

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:23:15 -0400

Also, FYI, Jorge, Deirdre, and I have submitted an updated version of 
a related I-D:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morris-geopriv-core-02.txt

This discusses proposed privacy related elements for the Location 
Object.  There are two main revisions from the prior draft:

  - the proposed ability to be able to set privacy rules for specific 
individuals (instead of specific credential holders) has been 
eliminated, in response to concerns that Henning and others raised.

  - the distinction between "machine-to-machine" and "human readable" 
rules has been rephrased, to make clear that some rules will only go 
between Location Servers, but other rules may be distributed more 
broadly, including possibly to end users.

One point that has not changed but raised some concern on the list is 
the proposal that one can make a privacy rule applicable to a 
specific or repeating time window.  The point was made that this can 
be very challenging to express, but others suggested ways that it 
might be accomplished.  So this time window issue is still an open 
question.

John

At 3:13 PM -0500 7/2/03, James M. Polk wrote:
>Information that will/should/might be conveyed within a Geopriv 
>Location Object (LO). This document is to start referencable 
>discussions on what can be included (regarding the Geopriv Target) 
>in the LO.
>
>This effort is more or less independent from the privacy and 
>security efforts that are the primary focus of this WG, but we feel 
>these discussions should take place among those of us interested in 
>such aspects of Geopriv
>