GeoprivW3CReport-IETF.ppt

W3C Workshop onLanguages for Privacy Policy Negotiation and Semantics-Driven Enforcement  Report Hannes Tschofenig IETF 67, San Diego, November 2006 Workshop Details 17 and 18 October 2006 -- Ispra/Italy hosted by the Joint Research Center (JRC) of the European Commission Webpage: /2006/07/privacy-ws/ Agenda (including papers and slides): /2006/07/privacy-ws/agenda Participants from W3C, research community (e.g., EU funded research project PRIME), companies A few pictures: /workshop/w3c-privacy/ Our Contribution to the Workshop: Geopriv/Presence Overview Paper Paper Title: “The IETF Geopriv and Presence Architecture Focusing on Location Privacy”/2006/07/privacy-ws/papers/26-tschofening-geopriv Slides: /2006/07/privacy-ws/presentations/26-tschofenig-geopriv.pdf Authors: Hannes Tschofenig, Henning Schulzrinne, Andrew Newton, Jon Peterson, Allison Mankin Feedback #1: Intended Recipient Not Explicit Without S/MIME the intended recipient of the location information is not explicitly specified. Already raised during discussions: /mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg14356.html Suggestion: Add text to Geopriv using protocols (in particular to the SIP Location Conveyance draft) to address this aspect. Feedback #2: Sticky Policies only for Loc-Info Basic Geopriv privacy policies (=stick policies) defined only for Location Info Travel always with PIDF-LO Question: Why only available for Location Info? Other information is also privacy sensitive. For discussion: Should we define privacy policies also for PIDF object? Feedback #3: Policy Push vs. Policy Pull Geopriv Basic Policies are pushed to the recipient. Assumption: Recipient acts in the anticipated way (as expressed in the policies) P3P realize a pull principle. Perceived problem: Privacy policies of recipient unknown. For further discussion: Consider a profiled version of P3P policies as an extension for SIP Use vocabulary and not protocol framework of P3P For example: Derive usage from P3P compact