Subject: A remark on the location-object-issues-00 draft

From: Cuellar Jorge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:10:43 +0200

In Section 4.2 there is a short list of groups that may have
defined certain formats for location information. Although
the list is not meant to be all-inclusive, and it is just a
suggestion, the problem is that in appearance favors one
wireless specification group (3GPP) over another (3GPP2),
and implicitly one wireless technology (GSM) over another
(CDMA).  That wasn't the intent. The sentence should be
supplemented by inclusion of 3GPP2. (Any further suggestion
for this list, as well as any comment to the draft is also
welcome.)

Regards,

Jorge

--------------------------------------------
Dr. Jorge R Cuellar     T +49 89 636-47 585
Security                
CT IC 3                 
Siemens        [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------

---

From: Carl Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:43:07 -0600

Just as a point of reference, the LIF and the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) are
working closely together to insure a basic level of consistency in how
geometry and coordinate reference systems are expressed and communicated in
our respective specifications. This includes common use of terms/definitions
and XML tags.

Regards

Carl Reed
OGC

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:55:14 -0400

Carl,

Glad you pointed. I've been meaning to comment on the LIF doc.

My appologies for taking so long to review the LIF document you were
kind enough to send -- LIF Privacy Guidelines, Version 0.5.0. Some
comments:

The format (MSWord) is unfortunate. I was able to find one machine that
has that application.
The revision history is helpful.

The introduction states reasonable a marketer's view of value-added service,
the benefits and risks could have been from the Direct Marketing Association
(DMA) or Internet Advertizing Board (IAB) white papers.

The intended audience (asp, app dev, operators, manufacturers, others), who
generally are passive consumers of standards arrived at elsewhere, is a bit
far from the IETF, which creates standards.

It is helpful that the OECD-specific framework is stated up front, American
(FTC) and European (DP) readers will understand what follows has limited
applicability.

I appreciate the reference to legal intercept, the subject of the raven list
and the IETF conclusion that 3rd-party junk generally makes the network more
difficult to manage. This is particularly honest on LIF's part since most if
not all of the LIF model for location involves 3rd-parties as policiers or
enhanced service (w.r.t. pots).

I'm gratified you selected opt-in as a basic regime, rather than the current
(or perpetual) US basic regime (opt-out). Incidently, last time I was reading
the ENUM list (where locality may also dwell), that WG had adopted opt-in.

The conceptual architecture is somewhat vague. Data structures and APIs would
be helpful.

The treatement of onward transport is rather cursory, given its central role
in marketing and data mining. You may want to take a look at the CPEX work
as an example attempt at the problem by some reasonable marketeers and techies.

Appendicies I and II are, IMO a waste. Covering the OECD Guidleine in one and
a half pages of non-dense near-bullets isn't paper well spent. Ditto for the
EU directives. This is adults-only sledding, seriously hard, and "doing the EU"
in 3.3 pages is slightly under-detailed. Citing five pages of external reading
in an annotated biblio would be useful. Everyone's going to hand this off to
counsel anyway.

My two beads worth, your milage probably varries,
Eric