RE: RE: [Geopriv] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol

Hi Ted,

At what scale do you expect this to work? If the location server is required to have a trust relation with everyone I might want to share my location with, it won't work for the Internet. 

For that, I think something like trait based authorization is needed: a URL that encodes my consent for you to retrieve my location, for a limited period

Regards,
Jeroen

-Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Ted Hardie" <[email protected]>
Aan: "Dawson, Martin" <[email protected]>; "Andrew Newton" <andy@hxrus>; "IETF SIP List" <[email protected]>; "GEOPRIV" <[email protected]>
Verzonden: 28-7-06 03:53
Onderwerp: [Sip] RE: [Geopriv] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol

Hi Martin,
	Having not seen your note, I already took a stab
it, along much the same lines you suggest.  Clearly, the attached
-00 (not yet in the drafts directories) is the barest of bare bones,
but I thought it might be useful to sketch that out as a contrast
to some of the real applications which might use HTTP as a
using protocol.
	I believe this also differs from RELO in that it is
focused on the transport of PIDF-LO, which is slightly different
from RELO's remit.  But clearly, there are strong connections there.
	And if the phrase "strawman" in the title doesn't
signal that I don't think this is a done piece of work, allow
this too.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie


At 7:50 PM -0500 7/27/06, Dawson, Martin wrote:
>Hi Andy,
>
>I'll take a stab at it. Not that HTTP is a valid *using protocol* but,
>rather, that the location reference does not actually identify a using
>protocol and, in fact, HTTP would only be the transport protocol...
>
>3693 states:
>   The "using protocol" is the protocol that uses (reads or modifies)
>   the Location Object.  A protocol that just transports the LO as a
>   string of bits, without looking at them (like an IP storage protocol
>   could do), is not a using protocol, but only a transport protocol.
>   Nevertheless, the entity or protocol that caused the transport
>   protocol to move the LO is responsible for the appropriate
>   distribution, protection, usage, retention, and storage of the LO
>   based on the rules that apply to that LO.
>
>A location reference which provided an HTTP URI indicates that the
>entity that is going to be used to request the LO is to be communicated
>with using HTTP. Because of the rules associated with the PIDF-LO, it
>can be inferred that the entity and whatever semantics are associated
>with the HTTP communications with that entity will honor the
>requirements. That is, HTTP is only the transport protocol. An HTTP GET
>has to be interpreted by the receiving entity within the scope of a
>using protocol - with its associated set of rules and semantics - which
>go beyond HTTP and which do respect the geopriv requirements. Indeed,
>this is generally the case - sending an HTTP GET to an arbitrary IP node
>can yield any number of results depending what that node actually does.
>The client needs to understand the purpose of that server in the scope
>of some higher level protocol.
>
>To use another example, a location reference could be an IP address.
>There's nothing inherent in IP that honors the geopriv rules, but that
>doesn't stop the reference being valid nor say that the protocol used
>between a client and that IP address would not honor the rules.
>
>The purpose of the SIP conveyance specification is to say how a LO or
>reference can be transferred from one entity to another using SIP. It's
>out of scope for a SIP specification to mandate anything about the
>transport protocol or to infer anything about using protocol implied by
>that transport. As has been previously mentioned, this would be subject
>to separate specification and BCP - lest the SIP conveyance
>specification become overly rigid and subject to unnecessary maintenance
>and churn.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2006 10:45 PM
>> To: IETF SIP List; GEOPRIV
>> Subject: [Geopriv] teasing apart: http as a GEOPRIV using protocol
>>
>> There have been a number of opinions regarding HTTP as a using
>protocol.
>>
>> I'd like to know, how many people believe that HTTP requires no or
>> very little specification to meet the requirements in RFC 3693 and
>> RFC 3694.  If you believe this, what basis do you have for this
>> conclusion?  Or do you believe more specification needs to be done,
>> but it is possible for HTTP to be a GEOPRIV using protocol?
> >
>> Finally, how many people believe that HTTP should not be a using
>> protocol?
>>
>> -andy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip