Subject: FW: Potential Location Summit

From: Dan Greening <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:02:58 -0700

Geopriv folks,

LIF and OMA (Open Mobile Architecture group) are interested in putting
together a location summit sometime in the next few months.  We are
interested in seeing whether IETF Geopriv group could participate, and
who might represent that group.

I admit to being somewhat clueless about the organizational structure of
IETF Geopriv, so could your fearless leader respond to this email and
let me know whether you'd be interested in attending and who might be
the most appropriate representative?

Thanks.

Dan Greening, Ph.D.  CEO, BigTribe Corporation 
              330 Townsend Street, Suite 209, San Francisco, CA
94107-1662 
              [email-masked]  +1(415)995-7151  fax 995-7155

-----Original Message-----
From: Byrnes Greg-FGB020 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:47 AM
To: Dan Greening
Subject: Potential Location Summit

Dr. Greening,

Here is an overview on the thoughts of a possible location summit.  The
goal
of which would be sharing information between organizations that are
currently working in the location space.  We theorized that each group
would
be allocated a time to provide a briefing on their location activities
which
would include the following:

- Objectives
- Vision
- Ongoing Activities
- Strategies
- Roadmaps
- Current Relationships

This would then be followed by a group discussion to identify overlaps,
duplicate efforts and gaps.

Here is a draft list of potential invitees to the summit.  We would be
willing to include other organizations if you think they would add
value.

- GSMA
- WAP Forum
- W3C
- 3GPP
- 3GPP2
- CDG
- LIF
- IETF
- Parlay
- OGC

Keep in mind that this meeting is in the formation phase and we have not
even come close to working out all of the
details (such as the legal ramifications of having such a meeting, NDA's
etc).  So see what you can do in talking with the two organizations that
you
agreed to talk to.

Thanks for helping,
Greg

---

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:19:35 -0400

define appropriate.
represent what or whom?

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 18:18:32 -0700

>the most appropriate representative?

As Bechet pointed out by referring to the charter, what geopriv  (or 
any other WG) does is quite transparent.  Regardless of whether 
anyone who also participates in geopriv attends this "summit", Mr 
Brynes should be encouraged to participate in geopriv, and post 
information regarding this meeting to the geopriv mailing list.  It 
would be useful to the IETF to know what these other organizations 
are attempting to accomplish.
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   While the belief we  have found the Answer can separate us
   and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues
   to bring us together, that makes and keeps us human.
   -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:40:16 -0400

> ...

This assumes that the meeting has some technical content, and that these
other organizations are attempting to accomplish something the IETF can
use, when and if their attempts conclude.

If not, then its just noise, and trips down policy-before-mechanism-lane
are the forte of other organizations. 

Eric

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 13:10:28 -0700

>use, when and if their attempts conclude.

I agree, Eric.  But I don't like to presume other organizations have 
no technical contributions to offer.

>are the forte of other organizations.

If that is the case they will be hoisted by their own petard.  I'm 
reasonably confident that IETF'ers will be able to discern the 
difference between what is useful and what is not.

best,
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 16:54:16 -0400

> no technical contributions to offer.

If the organization produces a text we can reference (free, unencumbered,
etc.), _and_ either the referant is network-independent, or might have an
api (ldap, ipv6, gss-api, ...), or has an ipv{4,6} wire-format, or uses
an IANA registered thingee, then great. It could be rocket science, but
if it never leaves cell-u-land or crosses the WAP-boundary, it may be good,
but it is hard to see how we can use it. The AMS can tell us all about the
ways to tile a 3-sphere, but we have to map some tile(s) to network topology.

> difference between what is useful and what is not.

Up until very recently, it was a trivial exercise to get half, or more,
of the current or recent IESG to say that security considerations (now
manditory for several years) properly contained "privacy" (definition
optional). Start with Harald in the IM mess last year and work down the
food-chain.

I'm a little more skeptical this year than I was in prior years.

Did anyone take notes at last week's interim?

Eric

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:42:05 -0500

>Did anyone take notes at last week's interim?

They (according to Allison) should be published to this list within the
(IETF) mandatory two weeks from last Thursday

>Eric

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

James M. Polk
Senior Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike 
Richardson, TX  75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f)  972.813.5280
www.cisco.com

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:18:18 -0400

Dan,

The responses have filled you in plenty about how
IETF prefers to work with other organizations - since
we all participate as individuals, and we are open and as
informal as possible, our favorite approach is for folks
who are involved in the work in other organizations to
participate in ours and share the perspectives.

But that said, I think we'd be glad to find out more
about other groups' plans.  Please give some more information
on what the intended results of a summit meeting would be.

Allison (geopriv co-chair and an IESG member)