[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in aPIDF-LO
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the constructive input.
I do think that we need to determine if this is something that people
think is generally worthwhile doing. I am hearing one resounding no, and
at least one saying they would prefer that derived locations didn't
happen but if they are going to then it is better we can see where they
came from.
So before we decide to make a generic solution for any linking between
any PIDF elements, can we have a clear yes or no whether people want a
linkage mechanism. If we decide we want to do this, then we have to
decide where to do it, ECRIT, GEOPRIV, or SIMPLE (since this is the
organization that owns PIDF).
Cheers
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br at brianrosen.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2008 8:22 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James; 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'James M. Polk'
> Cc: geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location
in
> aPIDF-LO
>
> If you were generalizing it:
> 1. You would want some more generalized id I think. Perhaps that is
what
> you have, but I don't really see it so far. Specifically, it has to
be
> unique across PIDFs/XML documents/message bodies. A GUID might be
> appropriate
>
> 2. You want to specify the relationship. "Derived from" is one
> relationship. "Same target, different time" is another.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom at andrew.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:41 PM
> > To: Brian Rosen; Hannes Tschofenig; James M. Polk
> > Cc: geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location
in
> > aPIDF-LO
> >
> > To be clear, this is expressing a relationship between any two
things
> that
> > have an XML <id> attribute.
> > The draft shows how this can be done to link two location chunks
> providing
> > the location chunks follow the rules laid out in PIDF-LO profile.
> >
> > Derived from is one way this can be used.
> >
> > Cheers
> > James
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org on behalf of Brian Rosen
> > Sent: Tue 7/29/2008 10:39 AM
> > To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; 'James M. Polk'
> > Cc: geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Announce: Specifying Derived Location
in
> > aPIDF-LO
> >
> > Actually, no.
> >
> > All you need to specify that a location is derived is to have the
method
> > token set to derived.
> >
> > James thinks there is value in linking the derived PIDF to the
original
> > PIDF.
> >
> > That is a separate question.
> >
> > I think there is some merit in the basic idea of linking.
> >
> > I wonder if this is a specific case of a more general notion:
expressing
> a
> > relationship between two PIDFs?
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org]
On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Hannes Tschofenig
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:26 AM
> > > To: James M. Polk
> > > Cc: geopriv at ietf.org; ecrit at ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [Ecrit] Announce: Specifying Derived
Location
> in
> > a
> > > PIDF-LO
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> I also though that location information was generally only
going be
> > > >> sent if TLS was used, which would rule out the use of UDP as a
> viable
> > > >> transport wouldn't it? Certainly I would be uncomfortable
sending
> my
> > > >> location in an unencrypted UDP packet as I hardly think that
that
> > > >> meets the general requirements of a using protocol.
> > > >
> > > > James, YOU keep making these points as if everyone has YOUR
values
> and
> > > > uses protocols only YOUR way. Are you (as a single entity)
> > > > representative of the entire human race?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am not sure why you guys are arguing around on this issue.
> > >
> > > * We know that location information is encoded in XML and not
> > > particularly small.
> > > * We also know that there are security issues with passing
location
> > > information around. Hence, we use security protocols.
> > >
> > > What we should think about is whether it makes sense to indicate
that
> > > location was derived. If you want to indicate that location was
> derived
> > > then there is the question on how to express that fact.
> > >
> > > Ciao
> > > Hannes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Geopriv mailing list
> > > Geopriv at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ecrit mailing list
> > Ecrit at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------
> > This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
> > this email is prohibited.
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----------------------
> > [mf2]
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit