Subject: [Geopriv] Last Call: <draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25.txt> (Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:28:22 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG
(geopriv) to consider the following document:
- 'Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy
   Preferences for Location Information'
  <draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-25.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This last call focuses on the changes related to location obfuscation (fuzzing)
resulting from additional working group attention resulting from a prior IESG review.
Please focus the review on the difference between versions -21 and -25 of this draft.

Version -21 of this document was IETF LCed in Jun 2010. Subsequent
IESG review identified an issue with location obfuscation that required
additional working group attention. 

Version -11 of this document was IETF LCed in Feb 2007 -  subsequent
IESG review identified several issues. The resulting working group
discussion resulted in significant changes to the document.

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-04-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document defines an authorization policy language for
   controlling access to location information.  It extends the Common
   Policy authorization framework to provide location-specific access
   control.  More specifically, this document defines condition elements
   specific to location information in order to restrict access based on
   the current location of the Target.

   Furthermore, this document defines two algorithms for reducing the
   granularity of returned location information.  The first algorithm is
   defined for usage with civic location information while the other one
   applies to geodetic location information.  Both algorithms come with
   limitations, i.e. they provide location obfuscation under certain
   conditions and may therefore not be appropriate for all application
   domains.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.