Subject: [Geopriv] Draft minutes from the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 57

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 22:23:27 -0400

Sorry for the tardiness of this.

If you have comments, please send them either directly to one of the 
chairs or the list.

Thank you.

-andy
Meeting Minutes of the Geographic Location/Privacy (GEOPRIV) 
Working Group, 57th IETF, Vienna, Austria, 17-July-2003

Chairs:
	Allison Mankin
	Randall Gellens
	Andrew Newton

Scribes:
	Hannes Tschofenig
	Jorge Cuellar

1) Agenda Bashing

Andrew Newton introduced himself as a new co-chair of the 
GEOPRIV working group.  He then introduced the agenda topics 
for the meeting and asked for comments.  John Schnizlein expressed 
concern for the agenda item regarding draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-
option.

2) draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option

It was noted that James Polk, one of the draft authors, was not 
present.

Jon Peterson presented these issues about the draft: the security 
considerations needed text regarding eavesdropping, details on 
authentication requirements, and additional text relating to 
coarseness.

Jon Peterson and Henning Schulzrinne discussed the issue of 
coarseness.  Concern was raised overed the applicability of the 
altitude attribute with the OpenGIS standard.  John Schnizlein and 
Jon Peterson discussed the need for usage documents and a 
mandatory-to-implement format.

3) draft-morris-geopriv-core

John Morris was not present, so Jon Peterson gave a presentation on 
this draft using slides given to him by John Morris.

Jon presented the basic elements of the rules labeled ÔAÕ through 
ÔEÕ, and then presented the basic tenet regarding the publishing of 
location objects with the absence of a full rule set (i.e. some rules are 
published with the location object and some rules reside on the 
location server).

4) draft-peterson-geopriv-pidf-lo

Jon Peterson gave a presentation on his PIDF-based Location 
Object draft.  He showed that the draft was based on GML 3.0 and 
attempted to re-use other standards to avoid complexity.  He asked 
for comments regarding the use of other schemas (e.g. civil, etc.), and 
asked for more discussion on the draft itself.

5) draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-pressense-lo

Henning Schulzrinne presented his draft on Location Objects.

Henning and Ted Hardie discussed the threat model with publication 
of the rules, and the need for constraining the rules published with 
the location object.  Jon Peterson compared the approach to the 
PIDF draft.

Henning also presented the need for providing more than points, 
such as vectors and paths (points in time).

6) draft-morris-geopriv-core

John Morris gave a brief presentation on this draft after his arrival.  
He noted the split in the rules between public rules and private rules.  
Jon Peterson suggested there also needs to be a "note-well" for the 
recipient.

This was followed by a general discussion regarding the challenge of 
ÔdurationÕ.  Henning mentioned there is a distinction between 
challenge with regard to the specification and challenge with regard 
to the implementation.

7) draft-cuellar-geopriv-lo-ml

Jorge Cuellar gave a presentation this Location Object markup 
language draft.

8) draft-tschofenig-authz-policies

Hannes Tschonfenig gave a presentation on authorization policies.

9) General Location Object Discussion

The chairs opened up the meeting to a general discussion on all the 
ideas presented for a Location Object.

Ted, acting in the capacity of Area Advisor to the working group, 
expressed concern over too much complexity in the proposals.  This 
was followed by discussion regarding the choice of features, the 
selection of rules to keep the design simple, the need for the 
immediate definition of policy, and the re-use of existing protocols.

Allison asked for a hum for support of only rules A through C.  This 
was the consensus of the room.

Randall then led a discussion of the more complex rules.  Henning 
asked if it were possible for two work efforts, one for the simple rules 
and one for the complex rules.  A concern was raised regarding the 
choice of implementation by the industry: complex rules will not be 
implemented if there are simple rules in the base specification.

Andrew asked for a hum regarding Hennings proposal to use two 
separate namespaces.  The consensus of the room was to move 
forward with this proposal.

10) draft-yokote-mobileip-api

Alper Yegin presented a proposal on a Mobile IP API.

Randall and Alper discussed the use of the API for obtaining 
information to be placed in the location objects.

Andrew raised the concern that a Mobile IP API would need wider 
review than the GEOPRIV working group.

11) Anonymous access to location information

Chris Newman presented work on a "pawn ticket" model.

12) Milestones and AOB

The chairs gave notice that the GEOPRIV working group would be 
moving to a new mailing list.

Andrew then led a discussion on the milestones.  This discussion 
concluded that the "scenarios" draft was now redundant with the 
core and requirements drafts.  This discussion also questioned the 
methodology to be used by an API, but no conclusion was reached.

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:32:46 -0400

The agenda-bashing text:
"John Schnizlein expressed concern for the agenda item 
regarding draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option." is vague to the 
point of inaccuracy.

Accurate text would be this:
"John Schnizlein objected to the surprise first item on the 
agenda, which was not on the published agenda, and which was 
added without the knowledge of either of the authors of the 
subject draft in the room.  After Jon Peterson claimed that 
the author not in the room knew about it, the Chair allowed 
his criticism of the draft, which was not posted to the mailing 
list before or during WG last call, to be presented anyway."

While I can understand the interest of the Chair in accommodating 
an IESG member (different Area), the process requirements of 
published agendas and comments on the mailing list are important 
to the perception of fairness of the IETF. If problems with the 
mailing list prevented Jon's direct posting to the list (as claimed), 
one would expect an IESG member to know that he could send the 
comments to the authors (or Chairs) with a request that they post 
(maybe even with response) to the list during the discussion time.

It is also crucial to the reputation of the IETF that, when an 
unfortunate mistake in applying the fairness process occurs 
(first thing in the morning), that the minutes accurately reflect 
what actually happened. The Agenda-bashing item is there in order
to catch mistakes like this, not as empty formality.

John

At 10:23 PM 9/23/2003, Andrew Newton wrote:
>If you have comments, please send them either directly to one of the chairs or the list.
>...
>...

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:20:54 -0400

> list before or during WG last call, to be presented anyway."

To be accurate, I was the one who claimed the non-present author knew 
about this agenda item.  I cleared it with him the previous day.  His 
absence was unfortunate, and, in hind-sight, the correct action should 
have been to delay the topic until he was able to attend (since he was 
expected) given the hesitancy of the authors.  Lesson learned.

This agenda item was added specifically because there were comments on 
the list regarding this draft during working group last call, though 
Jon's comments were new to the discussion.

> (maybe even with response) to the list during the discussion time.

This is an excellent point.  If anyone finds themselves having 
difficulties sending to the list, you can send me your comments and I 
will forward them.

-andy

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:05:34 -0400

At 09:20 AM 9/24/2003, Andrew Newton wrote:
>John Schnizlein wrote:
>>The agenda-bashing text:
>>"John Schnizlein expressed concern for the agenda item regarding draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option." is vague to the point of inaccuracy.
>>"John Schnizlein objected to the surprise first item on the agenda, which was not on the published agenda, and which was added without the knowledge of either of the authors of the subject draft in the room.  After Jon Peterson claimed that the author not in the room knew about it, the Chair allowed his criticism of the draft, which was not posted to the mailing list before or during WG last call, to be presented anyway."
>
>To be accurate, I was the one who claimed the non-present author knew about this agenda item.  I cleared it with him the previous day.  His absence was unfortunate, and, in hind-sight, the correct action should have been to delay the topic until he was able to attend (since he was expected) given the hesitancy of the authors.  Lesson learned.

Thank you for the correction. 
Please edit the proposed text above to reflect this detail 
while correcting the minutes for the IETF archive.

John