Subject: Revised draft of draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-0x.txt

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 10:55:52 -0500

As I suggested in an earlier note, we had a last minute glitch and we 
missed the internet-drafts deadline for submission of a revision of 
drafts-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt.

We will of course submit it once i-d's open up again after 
Minneapolis, but until then you can access the revised draft at

   ftp://ftp.cdtmail.org/pub/draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-01.txt

The revised draft incorporates three main changes/additions:

A.  The draft adds a new "definitions" section which sets out 
expressly some of the terms used in the draft.  These definitions 
approach those proposed by Jorge Cuellar.  Although there are some 
differences, they can likely be resolved and thus I think that Jorge 
and we may end up advancing a single set of proposed definitions.

B.  The grid of location "computation" scenarios has been modified 
somewhat to respond to some (but not all) of Brian Rosen's concerns 
about the concept of "carriers."  Brian may well continue to believe 
that our new term of "initial access provider" is irrelevant, but we 
believe the distinction between initial and later service providers 
is worth including.

C.  The revised draft sets out a number of scenarios that go beyond 
the initial computation scenario and illustrate the types of privacy 
issues that are raised by location services.

I still hope we can have a formal WG meeting.  If I were setting the 
agenda, I would make it simple (at least simple in form, but not in 
substance):

	1.  Discussion of the scope of charter and WG
	2.  "Final" (pending posting and discussion back on the list, 
of course) discussion of definitions and terminology
	3.  Set concrete plan to (a) finish on terminology, if 
needed, (b) create a scenarios document, if there is WG consensus to 
create one, and (c) create a requirements document.

If we cannot have a WG meeting, then I hope we will be able to 
discuss these issues less formally.  I've received only a couple of 
off-list e-mails on possible times for a bof, so I do not have much 
helpful to suggest.

  - perhaps we could meet for an hour right at 6pm/1800 on Tuesday?

  - Thursday 1300 - 1500 has been suggested...

  - and/or perhaps we could meet Friday morning at something like 7am or 9am?

My first choice, however, would be to have a WG meeting at the 
currently scheduled time.

John Morris

--------------------------------------------------
John Morris // CDT // http://www.cdt.org/standards
--------------------------------------------------

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:52:04 -0600

> currently scheduled time.

I second John's proposal..

-- 
Behcet

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:32:10 -0500

Apologies if you receive this message twice.  I sent it out two days 
ago and never got the posting back through the list, and the message 
has not yet appeared in the archives.  John

At 10:07 AM -0500 3/11/02, John Morris wrote:
>My ftp server appears to be hiccuping.  You can also get to the 
>revised draft at
>
>   http://www.cdt.org/standards/draft-morris-geopriv-scenarios-01.txt
>
>John
>
>At 10:55 AM -0500 3/8/02, John Morris wrote:
>>As I suggested in an earlier note, we had a last minute glitch and 
>>we missed the internet-drafts deadline for submission of a revision 
>>of drafts-morris-geopriv-scenarios-00.txt.
>>
>>differences, they can likely be resolved and thus I think that 
>>Jorge and we may end up advancing a single set of proposed 
>>definitions.
>>
>>about the concept of "carriers."  Brian may well continue to 
>>believe that our new term of "initial access provider" is 
>>irrelevant, but we believe the distinction between initial and 
>>later service providers is worth including.
>>
>>the initial computation scenario and illustrate the types of 
>>privacy issues that are raised by location services.
>>
>>I still hope we can have a formal WG meeting.  If I were setting 
>>the agenda, I would make it simple (at least simple in form, but 
>>not in substance):
>>
>>needed, (b) create a scenarios document, if there is WG consensus 
>>to create one, and (c) create a requirements document.
>>

----------------------------------------
John B. Morris, Jr.
Director, Internet Standards, Technology
    & Policy Project
Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 637-9800
(202) 637-0968 fax
[email-masked]
http://www.cdt.org
----------------------------------------

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:07:27 -0500

John