Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:04:03 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Framework for Location Computation Scenarios
	Author(s)	: J. Morris et al.
	Filename	: draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt
	Pages		: 11
	Date		: 14-Nov-01
	
This document defines a framework for describing location
computation scenarios.  The framework is intended to be a starting
point for a discussion of privacy and security issues for location-
based services.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Kenji Takahashi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:08:54 +0900

Jorge and Mehmet,

Congraturations on the draft!  Good work.  You guys saved the geopriv WG.

In my opinion, the draft does not make it clear which parts are requirements
or not.  I think that the sentences starting with "Req" are requirements and
the rest is just background information.  But the background information
sometimes sounds like requirements and is confusing.  For example,

I am not sure if basic location information types are requirements or not.
If it is, I have a comment on the descrete format along with Dante.  At
least,
in China and Japan, we do not use "street address".  Also the format should
handle international languages (e.g. UTF16, UTF32).  Anyway I think the
format
definition should be out of scope.

In 3.2, what is "correct" abstraction is written with example of DT1 and
DT2.  I do not think this is neccessary in the draft.  Rather, the draft may
say what is "correct" abstraction is out of scope. The protocol should not
assure the semantical correctness of the data.  It just sends back and forth
location relevant data between authenticated/authorized parties.

The Pol flow does not just send a policy but should let the owners view and
modify current policies stored in the repository.

The section 3.3 discusses identities and authentication/authorization.  But
I am not sure how the discussions are related to Req 15 and 16.  I think it
is more important to determine who authenticate/authorize whom in figure 1.

Regards,

Kenji