Subject: [Geopriv] interim meeting consensus decisions

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:55:26 -0400

All,

During the September 5 & 6 interim meeting of this working group, 
several consensus decisions were made.  They've been noted in the 
minutes, however I want to explicitly call them out for wider working 
group discussion and closure.  This will allow the relevant draft 
authors to move forward on revisions.

If you have any comments at all, please send them to the list.

-andy

FROM THE MINUTES:

1)

> Henning's presentation led to a group discussion about the need to define requirements for authentication in the using protocols.  It was asked if the requirements document should be updated to reflect this requirement, and this was upheld by the general consensus of the room.
> 

2)

> Discussion around hop-to-hop security, object security, and session security led the group to decide that object security was desired.

3)

> The group came to the following consensus; per-element granularity of security was not needed, and there was a preference for S/MIME over XML Digital Signatures.

4)

> The group agreed that shared secrets MUST be mandatory to implement and certificates SHOULD be implemented.

5)

> Following this discussion, the group decided that the interface language needed to be to have specific knowledge with respect to the data being filtered, and that there MAY be a more generic language similar to a XPATH.

6)

> The topic of IP address based policies was then brought up.  There was no consensus that this needed to be addressed.
> 

7)

> However, the group agreed that civil location should be in the baseline draft.

8)

> It was the general consensus of the room that G should be dropped.

9)

> The discussion of the E-L rules and elements went forward, the consensus of the room was that John Morris should modify the core draft to reflect current thinking on rules vs. permission bits.  Henning stated he would soon be working on a new model of permissions as an outcome of the meeting.  The group agreed that the next version of the core draft should attempt to match these meanings and should be a working group item.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:00:25 -0500

comments below

At 03:55 PM 10/14/2003 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>All,
>
>During the September 5 & 6 interim meeting of this working group, several 
>consensus decisions were made.  They've been noted in the minutes, however 
>I want to explicitly call them out for wider working group discussion and 
>closure.  This will allow the relevant draft authors to move forward on 
>revisions.
>
>>Henning's presentation led to a group discussion about the need to define 
>>requirements for authentication in the using protocols.  It was asked if 
>>the requirements document should be updated to reflect this requirement, 
>>and this was upheld by the general consensus of the room.

What exactly is the requirement here (in requirement format)?

Is this as simple as one subsection? Or one sentence?

I talked with Jorge a few weeks ago (but well after the Interim) and he 
hadn't heard that anything was needed in the reqs ID and was in limbo as to 
its status. That concerns me as he is the editor of the doc.

I'm also concerned about this doc being allowed to expire within "the 
process" (i.e. WGLC in June, no comments that I know of then or at the 
Vienna meeting, Interim in Sept, ID expires 9/5 without being moved forward 
for 2 months, now an email in October about Interim minutes calling for 1 
new requirement in the doc)....

>>However, the group agreed that civil location should be in the baseline 

what is the baseline draft? Is it the core ID, reqs ID or something else

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:14:34 -0400

James M. Polk wrote:

>>
>>> Henning's presentation led to a group discussion about the need to 
>>> define requirements for authentication in the using protocols.  It 
>>> was asked if the requirements document should be updated to reflect 
>>> this requirement, and this was upheld by the general consensus of the 
>>> room.
> 
> 
> hadn't heard that anything was needed in the reqs ID and was in limbo as 
> to its status. That concerns me as he is the editor of the doc.
> 
> Vienna meeting, Interim in Sept, ID expires 9/5 without being moved 
> forward for 2 months, now an email in October about Interim minutes 
> calling for 1 new requirement in the doc)....

Blame your lazy working group chairs.  It's been on their plate.

Actually, I'm doing the ID-nits check on it right now and it will be 
ready to go momentarily.  Sorry for this process failure.

According to the raw notes, there was an objection to this.  Without 
further explanation, I tend to agree.  This is why I specifically 
brought out the consensus items from the minutes.

> what is the baseline draft? Is it the core ID, reqs ID or something else

I think it was PIDF-LO.  However, I do not think the agreement was made 
only in reference to PDIF-LO.

-andy