Re: [Geopriv] First draft - agenda for GEOPRIV at IETF72

From: James M. Polk ^lt;>
Date: Thu Jul 17 2008 - 02:49:35 EDT

At 08:59 PM 7/16/2008, Richard Barnes wrote:
>At the last IETF 71, there was consensus to look into a 3693bis milestone,

I was part of this conversation with Jon, and we talked about RFC3694
(I remember that Jon forgot the number while talking, and I offered
the RFC umber and he agreed).

>notionally based on draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec. That is the draft
>that I had in mind to discuss in that time slot.

As I mentioned in that previous thread, I have no problems with a
3694bis - but don't yet see the need for a 3693bis.

>As you pointed out in our earlier discussion, the goals of this
>document are to update 3693 and 3694 to address scenarios that
>aren't clearly addressed by those documents, not to re-write the
>requirements. In draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec-03, we've tried hard
>to minimize overlap, and focused on three specific issues:
>1. How an LS provides privacy protections; how policies are
>structured and enforced
>2. How rules should be applied in a store-and-forward context
>(incomplete in lo-sec-03; to be generalized from -lo-retransmission-)
>3. How to assure LO integrity, authenticity, and confidentiality end
>to end (between LG and Viewer)

I don't think folks have agreed to this undertaking as a replacement
for our core requirements doc.

>Given that this is yet another significantly new direction for this
>document, comments would be greatly appreciated.
>James M. Polk wrote:
>>At 01:53 PM 7/16/2008, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>>10m 3963bis Richard
>>what's the ID for this topic?
>>Richard started a list discussion about
>> - do we need a 3694bis?
>> - do we need a 3693bis?
>> - do we combine these into a 3693/4bis effort?
>>The list discussion clearly had no consensus.
>>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv mailing list

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:49:35 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 17 2008 - 02:49:45 EDT