Subject: RE: FW: Potential Location Summit

From: Dan Greening <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 16:45:22 -0700

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.

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.

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: John W Noerenberg II [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:19 PM
To: Dan Greening
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: Potential Location Summit

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
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:40:11 -0700

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".