Subject: RE: FW: Potential Location Summit

From: Dan Greening <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:12:59 -0700

Behcet: OK, well that's fine, I kind of got that impression.  

So what we'd like to know is who from Geopriv, in principle, would
probably volunteer to attend a location summit and report back to IETF
Geopriv (i.e. not me).  So it looks like I'm asking the IETF Geopriv
members this question.  

Please answer "I'll probably go to a location summit, and I'll report
back to IETF Geopriv," if this is something you think you would do.

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: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:49 AM
To: Dan Greening
Cc: Eric Brunner; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: Potential Location Summit

Hi Dan,
  It seems that you are not familiar with how IETF works.
IETF Geopriv WG's charter is at:
http://ietf.org/html.charters/geopriv-charter.html
which states that Allison Mankin and Randall Gellens are co-chairs. All 
others are members of this WG. So there is no one to represent this WG 
or the co-chairs and any member (which is open to public, including 
yourself, i.e. anybody can be a member at any time) can represent 
Geopriv WG.
  Regards,

Dan Greening wrote:

>We are looking for someone to represent the IETF Geopriv group.  We
>believe (though if we are wrong, please set me straight) that this is
>the only active group in IETF dealing with location.
>
>We're not going to make any earth-shattering decisions, i.e. there
won't
>be any votes or anything like that, but we want to make sure that the
>efforts of the different groups are at least well-understood, and if
>possible coordinated to reduce the overall effort and maximize the
total
>value of the effort.
>
>LIF, OGC, WAP Forum, OMA, 3GPP and GSMA have lots of informal and
formal
>connections that ensure, or attempt to ensure, that we come up with
>harmonious standards and reduce the overall workload and produce better
>standards.  We'd like to have at least an informal communication path
>with IETF Geopriv.  This will likely benefit IETF Geopriv, even if the
>IETF Geopriv attendee's only function is to observe.
>
>So in other words, we'd like someone who can fairly represent the work
>of people in the group, has a good handle on what the group's likely
>accomplishments might be, and can communicate back to IETF Geopriv
about
>how that location summit proceeded.  We can probably accommodate
>multiple attendees from IETF Geopriv.
>
>Anyway, we just want to get a sense whether you'd support it, attend,
>etc.
>
>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: Eric Brunner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:20 AM
>To: Dan Greening
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: FW: Potential Location Summit 
>
>
>define appropriate.
>represent what or whom?
>

-- 
Behcet

---

From: Aleksandar Gogic <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 06:39:22 -0700

At 04:45 PM 6/8/2002 -0700, Dan Greening wrote:
>LIF (Location Interoperability Forum) specifies carrier interfaces
>related to location, including position data, privacy, roaming.  We just
>released LIF TS 101 v3.0.0, which has its primary contribution
>harmonization with OGC GIS specifications, and some new features related
>to roaming.  See www.locationforum.org.
>
>WAP Forum (Wireless Application Protocol) specifies presentation
>interfaces, but in fact they have also released a similar specification
>(that doesn't deal with roaming--because "presentation" doesn't
>technically have to deal with roaming, and I'm not sure about privacy).
>WAP Forum and LIF are working to harmonize their work and arrive at a
>single standard.  In fact, they both come from the same starting point,
>so this isn't very hard.
>
>OGC (Open GIS Consortium) specifies interfaces relating to geographic
>information systems, including mapping, routing, point-of-interest
>search, geocoding, reverse geocoding.  LIF and OGC work pretty closely
>together.  Don't ask me why this works where other relationships
>haven't, I'm not sure I've figured out the sociology of standardization
>groups yet.  LIF and OGC standards are very compatible.
>
>3GPP specifies interfaces relating to the WCDMA version of 3G wireless
>communications.  In fact, 3GPP's relationship with LIF has been one
>where 3GPP articulates requirements for location, privacy and roaming,
>and LIF specifies them.

Question:  If 3GPP is so "open", and LIF so unbiased, why don't LIF member 
companies just come to 3GPP and 3GPP2 meetings and do their work there in 
these official standards fora, recognized worldwide?  Why does LIF have to 
do their work behind closed doors, and then just present it at 3GPP as fait 
accompli?

By the same token, IETF is open to all and unbiased regarding wireless 
access technologies (or any related specialized technology for that 
matter.  That can be hardly said for LIF, as can be discerned between the 
lines of your text, though not explicitly expressed.

The Geopriv work should be done in the IETF, which has a clear record of 
success and legal standing that (so far) has not been corrupted by 
influence peddling by various individual companies or groups of companies.

>3GPP2 specifies interfaces relating to the CDMA2000 version of 3G
>wireless communications.  LIF's relationship with 3GPP2 is not as strong
>as 3GPP, probably because not enough CDMA carriers are involved in LIF.
>(I think this is a little like SOAP and .Net.  WCDMA is less proprietary
>so requires more cooperation, CDMA2000 is more proprietary, so requires
>less cooperation [or overhead, depending on your point of view].)
>
>OMA is a new organization that is trying to unify standards for network
>operators.  It is working closely with lots of standardization groups.
>
>With respect to guidance for IETF, I think you can look at these efforts
>(other than OGC) as relevant when network operators (also called
>"wireless carriers", Sprint, ATT Wireless, etc.) own the portal.  They
>become less relevant if operators don't control location information.
>Most of us believe that operators will control [=charge for, required to
>enable, etc.] location information for at least the next 5 years or so.
>
>Hope this is helpful.  There is a lot going on in other groups, and
>privacy is a big concern for them as well.  So working together seems to
>be a good idea.
>
>From: John W Noerenberg II [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:19 PM
>To: Dan Greening
>Cc: [email-masked]
>At 10:02 AM -0700 6/7/02, Dan Greening wrote:
> >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?
>
>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
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

Aleksandar Gogic
QUALCOMM Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121-1714
Office:  +1 858 651 5386
Mobile: +1 858 213 7368
[email-masked]

---

From: Dan Greening <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:19:16 -0700

Regarding LIF, for LIF TS 101, go to www.locationforum.org, click on
"Public Area", then "Public Area" (OK, that's pretty bad usability
design) and then download TS 101 3.0.0 zip file.

Regarding OGC, I'll let Carl discuss their current status.

Regarding OMA, the lame-o press release flurry is what you can find
publically.  I'm not going to speculate on its ultimate value, but it
seems to be an important group based on internal buzz.

I think arguments that these organizations are not as open as IETF are
reasonably correct--you have to pay to become a member, you relinquish
some intellectual property rights when you do so, and the internal
machinations of the specification process are opaque, not transparent as
in IETF.  WAP Forum, 3GPP, 3GPP2, etc are similar, I suspect.  There's a
role for both types of groups.

I realize now it's kind of crazy to ask IETF to be "represented" at such
a location summit--sort of like culture clash--but at least I asked.

I think these Group X vs. Group Y discussions are dominating the mailing
list, and probably for greatest effectiveness IETF Geopriv should get on
with its work.

-----Original Message-----
From: John W Noerenberg II [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:40 AM
To: Dan Greening
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: Potential Location Summit

At 4:45 PM -0700 6/8/02, Dan Greening wrote:
>LIF and OGC standards are very compatible

When you are speaking of standards in the IETF, please adopt the 
IETF's definitions.  The IETF does not put the cart before the horse. 
At best, what OGC have produced MIGHT be equivalent to something with 
PROPOSED status.  What is more likely, considering the methods 
they've adopted, their contributions would be considered 
INFORMATIONAL documents - which have no standing as something even 
considered for standards track.

The OGC technical documents I was able to find discuss coordinate 
representations and transforms.  Perhaps someone familiar with the 
OGC documents would be willing to bring them to the IETF's and 
geopriv's attention.  The geopriv WG might be able to use these 
location models as part of the definition of a location object.

>to roaming.  See www.locationforum.org.

I was unable to find this document on the website by searching 
www.locationforum.org.  What do you mean by released?   Unless it is 
available to the public, it is impossible to judge whether it is 
applicable to the IETF.

As for the so-called "Open Mobile Charter Initiative"  after 
searching for a couple of hours yesterday on the net, all I could 
find was a flurry of press releases that were essentially 
content-free.  As far as I can tell, the charter hasn't been 
published on the net.  It beggars the imagination how this could 
possibly meet any reasonable definition of "open".