Subject: Location Requirements - tracking

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:39:07 -0400

I would appreciate seeing a requirement that the object support
tracking.  This has several implications:
	1. The object may have to have a particularly small form
		tracking is often used on a small device
	2. We may want to specify a delta format in addition to an
		absolute
	3. The "geopriv protocol" needs to be at most a single packet
		exchange.  The first transaction in a tracking application
		could be more than this, but we need a low overhead
		mechanism for incremental updates

Brian

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:44:52 -0400

Another facet of this that it must be possible to include the location 
object in multicast-based using protocols. An example is a location 
beacon (e.g., imagine an 802.11 base station that announces its location.)

---

From: Eric Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:28:45 -0400

Henning,

I'll piggyback two comments.

I agree that multicast is desirable.

I agree that single packet is desirable.

Both of these are at odds with xml-over-a-unicast-connection.

Eric

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:48:01 -0400

I'm hoping that the architectural model is such that the location object 
is completely independent of properties of the using protocol(s), be 
these protocols designed expressly for geopriv (if any) or others. In 
particular, there should be no assumption that any using protocol is of 
the request-response variety.

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:11:04 -0500

>		mechanism for incremental updates

I don't like this idea. It should be up to the Location Service or the
Location Seeker to calculate or determine if a subsequent Location request
is desired and then do whatever it wants with that information - be that
tracking or some other use.

In other words, the burden shouldn't be on the Target to determine a delta
- a vector and velocity perhaps as optional additional info - but not a
delta (that I can see in version 1 of this Protocol at least)

>Brian

cheers,
James 

              *************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than 
                         they are willing to allow for others"

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:08:12 +0900

At 7:48 PM -0400 7/17/02, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>  In particular, there should be no assumption that any using 
> protocol is of the request-response variety.

Absolutely.  There can be a request-response, or unilateral disclosure.