Dynamic Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
RFC 5962
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, martin.thomson@andrew.com, vs2140@cs.columbia.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu, draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic@ietf.org, rbarnes@bbn.com to rbarnes@bbn.com |
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu |
2010-09-14
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-14
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 5962' by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-13
|
09 | (System) | RFC published |
2010-06-04
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-06-03
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-06-03
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-06-03
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-06-03
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-05-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-05-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-05-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-05-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-05-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2010-05-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-05-24
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Robert Sparks |
2010-05-21
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] One question and two nits. I almost made this a DISCUSS but I decided against it. Question: Was there any thought given to … [Ballot comment] One question and two nits. I almost made this a DISCUSS but I decided against it. Question: Was there any thought given to allowing a system of measurement parameter (i.e., imperial vs metric) to allow different speed measurements (e.g., feet/second vs meters/second)? Nits: Section 2: r/through/throughout Section 2: r/[RFC4079])/[RFC4079] |
2010-05-21
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] One question and two nits. Question: Was there any thought given to allowing a parameter for different speed measurements for imperial/metric (i.e., so … |
2010-05-21
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
2010-05-16
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu |
2010-04-13
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Responsible AD has been changed to Robert Sparks from Cullen Jennings |
2010-04-13
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Note]: 'LC will not have ended by the time this is on agenda but the odds are high there will be zero LC comments. If … [Note]: 'LC will not have ended by the time this is on agenda but the odds are high there will be zero LC comments. If we decide to approve, I will hold a discuss on any LC comments. Richard Barnes (rbarnes@bbn.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Robert Sparks |
2010-03-25
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 3.1. Angular Measures and Coordinate Reference Systems [RFC5491] constrains the coordinate reference system (CRS) used in PIDF-LO to World … [Ballot comment] 3.1. Angular Measures and Coordinate Reference Systems [RFC5491] constrains the coordinate reference system (CRS) used in PIDF-LO to World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) using either the two- dimensional (latitude, longitude) CRS identified by "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326" or the two-dimensional (latitude, s/two-dimensional/three-dimensional longitude, altitude) CRS identified by "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4979". |
2010-03-25
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-09.txt |
2010-03-17
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "ns" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html ID URI Registration template … IANA comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "ns" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html ID URI Registration template Reference ----- ------------------------------ -------------------- ------------ pidf:dynamic urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:dynamic pidf:dynamic [RFC-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-07] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "schema" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html ID URI Filename Reference ----- ------------------------------ ----------- ------------ pidf:dynamic urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:pidf:dynamic pidf:dynamic [RFC-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-07] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2010-03-06
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-03-06
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-08.txt |
2010-03-05
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-04 |
2010-03-04
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2010-03-04
|
09 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2010-03-04
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-03-04
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot discuss] I would like have a short discussion and the confirmation of the security experts that the following issue does not constitute a problem. … [Ballot discuss] I would like have a short discussion and the confirmation of the security experts that the following issue does not constitute a problem. The Security Considerations section is remarkably short saying just: > This document defines additional location elements carried by PIDF-LO. No additional security considerations beyond those described in RFC 4119 [RFC4119] are applicable to this document. RFC 4119 points back to RFC 3694 and RFC 3693 (section 7.4) to describe the threat model and the security requirements imposed on geopriv as result of the threat model. However, in my reading of these two documents they seem to take into consideration only the threats related to the current location information, while this drat introduces dynamic information that may be used by attackers to anticipate the future location of a host. To my understanding the security considerations refered in RFC 4119 may still be enough to cover the new scenarions, but I would like to have this confirmed by the security reviewers. |
2010-03-04
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] It wouldn't hurt to add a definition or pointer to a definition of "presentity" to the Terminology section. |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] I am agreeing with a comment from Adrian/Tim on velocity. 3.1. Angular Measures and Coordinate Reference Systems [RFC5491] constrains the … [Ballot comment] I am agreeing with a comment from Adrian/Tim on velocity. 3.1. Angular Measures and Coordinate Reference Systems [RFC5491] constrains the coordinate reference system (CRS) used in PIDF-LO to World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) using either the two- dimensional (latitude, longitude) CRS identified by "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326" or the two-dimensional (latitude, s/two-dimensional/three-dimensional longitude, altitude) CRS identified by "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4979". |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] I would also like to see some discussion of Adrian's comments. I am particularly interested in the decision to adopt the commonly used … [Ballot comment] I would also like to see some discussion of Adrian's comments. I am particularly interested in the decision to adopt the commonly used scalar definition of acceleration instead of the vector definition of acceleration. Was this considered? |
2010-03-03
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-03-02
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-03-02
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-03-01
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I'm not entering a Discuss, but I have a number of fairly strong Comments that I hope you will feel able to debate … [Ballot comment] I'm not entering a Discuss, but I have a number of fairly strong Comments that I hope you will feel able to debate in email and make updates to the draft accordingly. --- Your Abstract says... This document defines PIDF-LO extensions that are intended to convey information about moving objects. Perhaps you could be a little more afirmative? Such as: This document defines PIDF-LO extensions to convey information about moving objects. --- Why is the directional component of acceleration not supplied? --- In Section 3.1 The and establish a direction. Aren't they both directions in their own right? And can't they be different? establishes a "direction of facing" while establishes a "direction of travel". --- In Section 3.1 Angular measures are expressed in degrees and values MAY be negative. Are you sure that this is an RFC 2119 "MAY"? Wouldn't "may" be perfectly adequate? --- In Section 3.1 The first measure specifies the horizontal direction from the current position of the presentity to a point that it either pointing towards or travelling towards. You (I hope) don't mean "either". Hopefully there is a little more predictability! I think you mean: The first measure specifies the horizontal direction from the current position of the presentity to a point that it is pointing towards (for ) or travelling towards (for ). --- In Section 3.1 The second measure, if present, specifies the vertical component of this angle. This angle is the elevation from the local horizontal plane. If the second angle value is omitted, the vertical component is unknown and the speed measure MAY be assumed to only contain the horizontal component of speed. Well, surely it is only if the second angle value of is omitted that you can make that assumption. If the second angle of is absent, it says nothing about speed. Additionally, when you say "MAY" in this case, it implies that the normal case is something else that you have not stated. --- Section 5 At the very least, you are introducing additional information that may be distributed. Knowledge of that information makes a presentity more vulnerable, therefore the definition of additional Presence Information puts further weight behind the need to use security mechanisms. |
2010-02-28
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-02-28
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] 3.1. Angular Measures and Coordinate Reference Systems [RFC5491] constrains the coordinate reference system (CRS) used in PIDF-LO to World … [Ballot comment] 3.1. Angular Measures and Coordinate Reference Systems [RFC5491] constrains the coordinate reference system (CRS) used in PIDF-LO to World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) using either the two- dimensional (latitude, longitude) CRS identified by "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326" or the two-dimensional (latitude, s/two-dimensional/three-dimensional longitude, altitude) CRS identified by "urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4979". |
2010-02-28
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-02-25
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2010-02-25
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] Waiting to see if any LC comment are received. LC End Mar 24. |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-04 by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Note]: 'LC will not have ended by the time this is on agenda but the odds are high there will be zero LC comments. If … [Note]: 'LC will not have ended by the time this is on agenda but the odds are high there will be zero LC comments. If we decide to approve, I will hold a discuss on any LC comments. Richard Barnes (rbarnes@bbn.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Note]: 'LC will not have ended by the time this is on agenda but the odds are high there will be zero LC comments. If … [Note]: 'LC will not have ended by the time this is on agenda but the odds are high there will be zero LC comments. If we decide to approve, I will hold a discuss on any LC comments. Richard Barnes (rbarnes@bbn.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings |
2010-02-24
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-02-24
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-02-24
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-11-18
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings |
2009-10-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Richard Barnes (rbarnes@bbn.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-10-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Richard Barnes is the document shepherd. He has reviewed the document and believes that this document is suitable for publication as Proposed Standard. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has had sufficient review from the GEOPRIV WG. This document has been reviewed by Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) members, and while there were some reservations about the choice not to use GML, the document was otherwise considered appropriate. This document is the basis for existing work in the GEOPRIV WG (draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters). (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? The document shepherd does not believe that additional review is needed. There are no especially difficult items in the document. The usual IETF LC review process should be adequate (including Gen-ART, SECDIR, and so on). (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. This document was originally presented with an intended status of experimental. However, the work has since matured considerably. Since a GEOPRIV document (draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters) with an intended status of proposed standard now relies on this document, the authors and document shepherd believe that it is most appropriate to publish as proposed standard. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This document is being made as an individual submission, but this is mostly due to working group work scheduling concerns and not with the quality or suitability of the document. A number GEOPRIV participants have contributed to this document through reviews or suggestions. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No appeal is anticipated. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document contains no NITS. No formal review is required for this publication. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document correctly splits references into two sections. There are no down-refs. There is one informational reference to an OGC document that is already referenced in other standards track RFCs (RFC 5491). (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations section identifies an XML namespace and schema that are registered in the IETF URN space. These correctly follow the procedures in RFC 3688. No registry is established by this document. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The XML schema and examples have been validated using Xerces-J 2.9.1. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines extensions to the Presence Information Data Format - Location Object (PIDF-LO) for presentity orientation, speed heading and acceleration. Working Group Summary This is an AD-sponsored independent submission to the RFC editor. Document Quality There are currently no implementations of this specification. Extensive reviews of the document have been made by several GEOPRIV participants; each of whom are indicated in the acknowledgements. Personnel Richard Barnes is the Document Shepherd for this document. Cullen Jennings is the Responsible Area Director. |
2009-10-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-08-17
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-07.txt |
2009-06-22
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-06.txt |
2009-03-09
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-05.txt |
2008-10-30
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-04.txt |
2008-07-12
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-03.txt |
2008-05-22
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2007-11-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-02.txt |
2007-03-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-01.txt |
2006-09-06
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-00.txt |