Subject: [Geopriv] Location Presence Event Package

From: "Pailer Rudolf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 07:57:24 +0200

Hello!

I would like to notify you about the the Internet Draft "A Location
Presence Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)".
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pailer-locpres-00.txt

The draft describes the usage of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
for subscriptions and notifications of location presence. Location
presence is information about the geographical position of a user.
Subscriptions and notifications of location presence are supported by
defining an event package within the general SIP event notification
framework.

The concept of a SIP based location enabler that is the core of the
proposed draft was published on several occasions:
*) A Terminal-Based Location Service Enabler for the IP Multimedia
Subsystem, R. Pailer, S. Bessler, F. Wegscheider, IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference April 2006 (WCNC06), Las Vegas,
USA
*) Terminal-Centric Location Services for the IP Multimedia Subsystem,
J. Fabini, M. Happenhofer, R. Pailer, IEEE 63rd Vehicular Technology
Conference, May 2006, Melbourne, Australia
*) Implementing a Native IMS Location Service Enabler over a
Prototypical IMS Core Network Testbed, P. Reichl, S. Bessler, J. Fabini,
R. Pailer, J. Zeiss,The Third IEEE International Workshop on Mobile
Commerce and Wireless Services (WMCS'06) June 26, 2006, San Francisco,
USA
*) Practical Experiences with an IMS-Aware Location Service Enabler on
Top of an Experimental Open Source IMS Core Implementation, P. Reichl,
S. Bessler, J. Fabini, R. Pailer, A. Poropatich, N. Jordan, R. Huber, H.
Weisgrab, C. Brandner, I. Gojmerac, M. Ries, F. Wegscheider, Journal of
Mobile Multimedia, Rinton Press, Fall 2006
*) Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, Location Based
Services an TeleCartography, G. Gartner, W. Cartwright, M. P. Peterson
(Eds.), Springer, 2007

I can provide above documents in PDF format, if needed.

Feedback from the IETF Working Groups GEOPRIV and SIPPING would be
appreciated very much indeed.

greetings
Rudolf

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:30:33 +0200

Hi Rudolf,

I would be interested to read the documents you mentioned. I also would 
like to better understand the relationship of your document to the 
following GEOPRIV documents:

* PIDF-LO & Presence
The PIDF-LO (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4119.txt) is meant to be used in 
the presence architecture. RFC 4079 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4079.txt 
describes the motivation why it is useful to map the presence work to 
the GEOPRIV concepts.

* Notification Filters
To limit the amount of notifications Rohan wrote a document that is 
about to get finished (see 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-01.txt).

* The Common Policy / GEOPRIV / Presence authorization policy documents 
describe how privacy can be enabled for presence based systems that, 
among other things, use location information in presence systems.
Here are the documents:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4745.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-11.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-presence-rules-09.txt

We recently worked on a short paper for a W3C privacy workshop. I have 
to search for it...
A longer version of the paper will be published soon in form of an IETF 
draft.

* Profiling of Location Formats
httf a Location Server and a Location Generator.
 > >>>The terms "Location Server", "Access Provider" and "Location
 > >>>Generator" are taken from RFC 3693.
 > >>>"
 > >>>
 > >>>What do other people think about using this term in
 > >>><draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps>?
 > >>>
 > >>>Ciao
 > >>>Hannes
 > >>>
 > >>>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:30:33 +0200

Hi Rudolf,

* PIDF-LO & Presence

* Notification Filters

* Profiling of Location Formats
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-06.txt
This document provides more information on the usage of GML. The idea 
was that we do the profiling once and then we don't need todo it for 
every document.
A revised version of the civic location format can be found here; 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05.txt

* Temporal Features
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-01.txt
This document extends the <location> element specified in RFC 4119 to 
carry temporal feature elements useful for tracking moving objects.

Ciao
Hannes

Pailer Rudolf wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

p://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-06.txt
This document provides more information on the usage of GML. The idea 
was that we do the profiling once and then we don't need todo it for 
every document.
A revised version of the civic location format can be found here; 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05.txt

* Temporal Features
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-01.txt
This document extends the <location> element specified in RFC 4119 to 
carry temporal feature elements useful for tracking moving objects.

Ciao
Hannes

Pailer Rudolf wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 07:34:56 -0400

I've read this, and I don't really understand why real presence (with the
filter package) doesn't provide the same service.

Can you give an example where presence+filter is significantly different
from this package, with the filter inclusion?   It seems to me that you get
roughly the same number of messages, with roughly the same content.

Brian

  _____  

From: Pailer Rudolf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:57 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] Location Presence Event Package

Hello! 

I would like to notify you about the the Internet Draft "A Location Presence
Event Package for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)".

 <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pailer-locpres-00.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pailer-locpres-00.txt 

The draft describes the usage of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
subscriptions and notifications of location presence. Location presence is
information about the geographical position of a user.  Subscriptions and
notifications of location presence are supported by defining an event
package within the general SIP event notification framework.

The concept of a SIP based location enabler that is the core of the proposed
draft was published on several occasions: 
*) A Terminal-Based Location Service Enabler for the IP Multimedia
Subsystem, R. Pailer, S. Bessler, F. Wegscheider, IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference April 2006 (WCNC06), Las Vegas, USA

*) Terminal-Centric Location Services for the IP Multimedia Subsystem, J.
Fabini, M. Happenhofer, R. Pailer, IEEE 63rd Vehicular Technology
Conference, May 2006, Melbourne, Australia

*) Implementing a Native IMS Location Service Enabler over a Prototypical
IMS Core Network Testbed, P. Reichl, S. Bessler, J. Fabini, R. Pailer, J.
Zeiss,The Third IEEE International Workshop on Mobile Commerce and Wireless
Services (WMCS'06) June 26, 2006, San Francisco, USA

*) Practical Experiences with an IMS-Aware Location Service Enabler on Top
of an Experimental Open Source IMS Core Implementation, P. Reichl, S.
Bessler, J. Fabini, R. Pailer, A. Poropatich, N. Jordan, R. Huber, H.
Weisgrab, C. Brandner, I. Gojmerac, M. Ries, F. Wegscheider, Journal of
Mobile Multimedia, Rinton Press, Fall 2006

*) Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, Location Based Services
an TeleCartography, G. Gartner, W. Cartwright, M. P. Peterson (Eds.),
Springer, 2007

greetings 
Rudolf

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:35:17 -0400

Like Brian I think this seems so close to existing presence that you 
need to work harder to make the case for something different, and to 
show how the two packages would be coordinated.

It appears to me that a major goal you have is to avoid sending out 
messages as a result of movement when there are no watchers that are 
interested in that movement. While I can see how that could be helpful 
in some cases, it needs to be reconciled with the resulting need to 
manage subscriptions from what could be a large number of watchers.

In any case, I think what you suggest could be achieved by introducing 
some special filters for geoloc information into standard presence. At 
least that would work when there is no separate presence aggregator.

	Paul

Brian Rosen wrote:
> I’ve read this, and I don’t really understand why real presence (with 
> the filter package) doesn’t provide the same service.
> 
> from this package, with the filter inclusion?   It seems to me that you 
> get roughly the same number of messages, with roughly the same content.
> 
>  
> 
> Brian
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Pailer Rudolf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 09, 2007 1:57 AM
> *To:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* [Geopriv] Location Presence Event Package
> 
>  
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Commerce and Wireless Services (WMCS'06) June 26, 2006, San Francisco, USA
> 
> Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
> This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
> Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
> Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP