RE: [Geopriv] Location in SIP and "retransmission-allowed"

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;br@brianrosen.net>
Date: Fri May 04 2007 - 14:52:08 EDT

Okay, so tell me, when 4119 talks about LI or LO in the context of
retransmission allowed, what LI was it talking about?

Again, I can deal with a request to normatively change 4119 to remove the LI
part. I don't agree with such a change, but it makes sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to say that 4119 doesn't apply, or the words don't
mean what I think they mean.

The LO has a ruleset that specifies what the recipient can do with the
location. To me, that means LI, not just LO. As with anything else, if you
sufficiently obscure the location (like just take the country code), then
the rulemaker may not care, so your example may be moot.

To supply a counter-example, can the car service who drives Christina
Aguilera around post the street addresses of every location it has picked up
or dropped off at in the last year on its website in real time? Can it post
the apartment numbers? No identifiers, mind you - just the LI.

Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:58 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: 'Marc Linsner'; 'Richard Barnes'; 'GEOPRIV'
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Location in SIP and "retransmission-allowed"
>
> If somebody sent you an email saying "Hi, this this your friend Bob.
> I'm enjoying my vacation in St. Tropez, but please don't tell anyone
> that I'm here", would you consider it retransmission if you went to
> Expedia to now also find plane tickets to St. Tropez? Are you allowed
> to look up St. Tropez in Wikipedia after receiving the email?
>
> We never discussed these location-only issues in the context of 4119,
> so I find it unhelpful to over-interpret these words. We can all
> become constitutional lawyers divining the penumbra of emanations, or
> we can try to solve actual privacy problems using common-sense
> expectations that actually improve user privacy, e.g., by stipulating
> the use of cryptographic methods.
>
> Henning
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>
> > Are you being dense on purpose, or have I missed something?
> >
> > A SIP UA sends its location to a proxy server, which takes the LI
> > out and
> > sends it to LoST. What the proxy is sending is the LI of a
> > device. To me,
> > that is exactly what the current 4119 language says you can't do if
> > retransmission-allowed=no.
> >
> > I'm NOT really arguing one way or another about whether this should be
> > allowed or not. I'm trying to figure out if you want a normative
> > change to
> > 4119. I keep reading your messages as being "NO, I don't think we
> > need to
> > normatively change 4119". I'm trying to figure out how you do that.
> >
> > 4119 says you can't send LI of a device. A SIP proxy sending a UA's
> > location to a LoST server is sending LI of a device. Where am I
> > going wrong
> > here?
> >
> > Brian
> >

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 4 May 2007 14:52:08 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 04 2007 - 14:52:17 EDT