Subject: [Ecrit] LoST Progress

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:35:34 -0400

The ECRIT WG chairs have struggled with the progress we made on the
discussions in context of the different proposals for providing 'location
hiding'. 

First, we started our discussion on the requirements quite late in the
process, LoST has already been through one working group last call. 

Second, there is still confusion about the requirements and the architecture
surrounding 'location hiding'.

We believe the requirements/solutions surrounding 'location hiding' need
further discussion. Hence, in the interest of moving forward and meeting our
stated (already late) milestone, we are going to ask the authors to submit
LoST-06 with changes that came from the last call process. 

It would be great to complete the document as initially planned since it is
already delayed. We do expect to see more discussions in the context of
'location hiding'. We will work on a proposal for a charter update to
reflect this work and potentially other related activities.

We hope everyone will support this path forward.

Marc & Hannes

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:03:48 -0500

Yes - for me. That's why we're discussing options that don't need
changes to LoST as an assumed constraint.

Cheers,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2007 11:36 PM
To: 'ECRIT'
Subject: [Ecrit] LoST Progress

The ECRIT WG chairs have struggled with the progress we made on the
discussions in context of the different proposals for providing
'location
hiding'. 

Second, there is still confusion about the requirements and the
architecture
surrounding 'location hiding'.

We believe the requirements/solutions surrounding 'location hiding' need
further discussion. Hence, in the interest of moving forward and meeting
our
stated (already late) milestone, we are going to ask the authors to
submit
LoST-06 with changes that came from the last call process. 

It would be great to complete the document as initially planned since it
is
already delayed. We do expect to see more discussions in the context of
'location hiding'. We will work on a proposal for a charter update to
reflect this work and potentially other related activities.

Marc & Hannes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:56:09 -0500

Please can somebody explain to me how location hiding is an ECRIT
charter item?

I understand that IF, it changes LoST that it may have SOME necessary
ECRIT work, but the core of everything to do with location hiding is on
the access side, with how an end-point gets this stuff. This is, without
any doubt in my mind a geopriv concern, as it is location information of
sorts.

I am totally opposed to any charter change with in ECRIT to pick up work
that has clear scope in a different WG.

Cheers
James

'location
submit

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:30:27 +0200

Hi James,

I think we shouldn't get too focused on where the work takes place. 
After all, we have a very good relationship with GEOPRIV and if we 
finally conclude that it would be better todo parts of the work in 
GEOPRIV than that will be fine as well.

Still, the problem surfaced in ECRIT as part of the location hiding for 
emergency calls. That's what we care about. There may be other use cases 
for non-emergency services but so far we wanted to solve an emergency 
services problem. Right?

Ciao
Hannes

Winterbottom, James wrote:
>> We believe the requirements/solutions surrounding 'location hiding'
>>     
> need
>   
>> further discussion. Hence, in the interest of moving forward and
>>     
> meeting
>   
>> our
>> It would be great to complete the document as initially planned since
>>     
> it
>   
>> is
>> already delayed. We do expect to see more discussions in the context
>>     
> of
>   
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:33:50 -0400

James,

>From the ECRIT charter:

"The group will show how the availability of location data and call
routing information at different steps in session setup would enable
communication between a user and a relevant emergency response
center."

ECRIT's current charter/milestones include creating architecture documents
describing VoIP emergency calling.  To that end, 'availability of location
data' includes 'location hiding' and will either be dealt with by ECRIT
and/or GeoPriv and possibly others.

The very issue of location hiding arose from ECRIT's architecture documents
when Deutsche Telekom (DT) stated they would not support the IETF emergency
calling architecture due to our requirement to advise the end-host and/or
non-DT-VSP of DT provided location data.

So, yes, ECRIT will deal with 'location hiding'.

-Marc-

> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:56 PM
> To: Marc Linsner; ECRIT
> Cc: GEOPRIV
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] LoST Progress
> 
> Please can somebody explain to me how location hiding is an 
> ECRIT charter item?
> 
> I understand that IF, it changes LoST that it may have SOME 
> necessary ECRIT work, but the core of everything to do with 
> location hiding is on the access side, with how an end-point 
> gets this stuff. This is, without any doubt in my mind a 
> geopriv concern, as it is location information of sorts.
> 
> I am totally opposed to any charter change with in ECRIT to 
> pick up work that has clear scope in a different WG.
> 
> Cheers
> James
> 
> 
> 
> > architecture surrounding 'location hiding'.
> >

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:15:06 -0500

Hi Hannes,

Thanks for the conciliatory response it is appreciated.

I agree that the problem surfaced here, and as far the routing of a call
goes I am happy with that bit to stay in ECRIT. I just wanted it
acknowledged that providing location and location representation is in
GEORPIV space, and that that is where it would stay. I think you have
done that, thanks.

I agree that we want emergency calling to work, I guess that it just
isn't clear to me how if the end-point is given a PSAP URI that it won't
work. Without a forest guide the VSP will have to trust the PSAP URI
anyway no matter what solution is put in place.

Cheers
James

> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, 16 June 2007 6:30 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: Marc Linsner; ECRIT; GEOPRIV
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RE: [Ecrit] LoST Progress
> 
> Hi James,
> 
necessary
> >> We hope everyone will support this path forward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------