Coming to this quite late in the discussion, here's my 2¢, in case it helps provide a relatively disinterested (but not *un*-interested) summary so far:
- The benefits expected from the proposed enhancement seem very hard for the mailing list to pin down and express (some are disputed as benefits, while others are acknowledged, but minor...). - Some use-cases have been described, but I think it would be fair to say that none of them describes an absolute "can't live without it" need for the enhancement. Most of the claimed benefits seem to be realisable by other means, potentially for less effort. - The people who would have to do the work to implement and deploy the enhancement are not the ones who would get the direct benefit - which makes it hard to build a rationale for doing it. From an identity, privacy an policy perspective, there's also this: any time you have something which builds identity (and for the sake of this discussion I'm going to treat 'long-term and relatively accurate data about location' as a form of identity) into the online infrastructure, there is often some claimed benefit from it, but there is also a corresponding drawback in terms of privacy and security. For instance, copyright law enforcement has been cited as one possible use of the location data - but actually, GPS precision is almost certainly excessive for this purpose, given that copyright regimes apply at the level of the nation state, not the GPS co-ordinate... And once the data is in the header, it will get used for whatever purpose people can find to exploit or monetize it. It is by no means certain that all those purposes will be in the interests of the end user, For example, 'language preference expression' may seem like a neutral enough goal, but then we should also consider - what happens if the technical infrastructure starts to identify you specifically as a Bosnian Muslim, or as an Arab Israeli, or as a Kurd living in Turkey... As I say, these are just my thoughts as someone coming late to the discussion and with no particular 'investment' in it to pursue... hope this is useful, though. Yrs., Robin Robin Wilton Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy On 12 Nov 2012, at 08:42, "Ammar Salih" <ammar.sa...@auis.edu.iq> wrote: >> IP addresses identify a device and it's location on the Internet, not it's >> geographical location (although there is some correlation, assuming no >> tunnels), or the person who is using it. > > Sounds very reasonable and I totally agree .. but don't we use IP address to > determine geographic locations? Isn't that what google, youtube and other big > names use to determine locations? > > >> There is a Geolocation API for web browsers, perhaps it could be >> generalised to suit other applications. > >> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html > > This is exactly what I am talking about, too many applications for the same > purpose, we need one lower layer mechanism to unify all of them and make > integration more flexible and compatible. > > >> To identify people, to then determine their attributes (e.g. their >> preferred language), you have to use "attributes" of them, not the machine >> they're currently using or where it is located on the Internet e.g. what >> they know, what they are or what they have. > > This is how the majority of Internet work today, based on IP address, I gave > google as an example, plus language is not the only benefit, how about other > benefits, like Ads and commercials, I mentioned an example of getting Ads of > restaurants in my city instead of getting Ads about all restaurants in > country. > > > Ammar > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ammar Salih <ammar.sa...@auis.edu.iq> >> To: 'Eitan Adler' <li...@eitanadler.com> >> Cc: geop...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org >> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012 9:15 AM >> Subject: RE: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header >> >>> another good example would be webpage’s language, my language will >>> be detected more accurately based on my area rather than my country, >> >>> This is a very bad idea. There are already mechanisms for >>> determining preferred languages. >> >> If those mechanisms are successful then why websites like google do >> not use them? They use IP address instead, and it's not always about >> http applications, how about VoIP applications, now you need another >> mechanism? .. >> how about detecting your preferred language for layer-3 routing? >> >> >>> In many cases people don't speak the language of the area they are >> located. >> >> Not many cases, maybe only while you are travelling to certain places >> of a language that you don't speak, in that rare case you can manually >> change the language via whatever application you are using. >> >> >>> as there are many countries with more than one popular language, not >>> mentioning that many ip registrations does not even reflect the >>> traffic originating country. >> >>> Why does this need to be in the IP header? There already exist >>> application layer mechanisms for obtaining location information. >>> Leaving it at the application layer also allows for appropriate >>> privacy UI controls. >> >> I've explained this in previous parts of the document, mainly because >> Layer-3 devices won't be able to recognize the feature, and also to >> unify the location implementations at different layers. >> >>> Routing: Policy based routing, based on geo-location, like routing >>> predefined traffic through certain server or path, for different >>> purposes (security, manageability, serviceability like choosing >>> language, or routing traffic to specific cashing or proxy server >>> based on country .. etc) >> >>> This is the only somewhat sane use case I could see for this information. >>> Even then, location of the originating request isn't always the >>> correct item to route on. >> >> It doesn't have to be always .. at least now you partially agree :) >> >>> Copyright law: It happens when certain media/web content is not >>> allowed in certain countries due to copyright law, the current method >>> of determining locations is not accurate at all, on other hand, If >>> layer-7 application to be used then the user might be able to >>> manipulate the location field, in this case (if it’s required in >>> future) the ISP can tag traffic with country/city more accurately as >>> traffic passes through ISP’s boarder routers. >> >>> The user can manipulate or control the lower layer IP traffic too. >>> If they can't this is an absurd privacy violation. >> >> Users currently have absolutely *NO* control over IP<->location >> mapping, it's totally how your IP owner has registered the IP subnet, >> what I am suggesting is that your local ISP *can* tag the city >> location "if it's required", unless you want to share your exact >> location or set the location to all zeros, in this case you are asking >> the ISP not to tag your location, but in this case you give up all location >> based services. >> >> >>> Maps, navigation, emergency calls and many other services will be >>> also enhanced with accurate locations. >> >>> Once again - this should be done at the application layer. >> >>> Response: It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when >>> there is location update, also the host should have the option of >>> not to send location updates. >> >>> Didn't you just mention above that information would be added by ISP >>> routers >> >> I said under the copyright law section "(if it’s required in future) >> the ISP can tag traffic with country/city more accurately as traffic >> passes through ISP’s boarder routers" ... which means the user has the >> option to put his/her real location, or set the location field to all >> zeros, or leave it without location tagging .. *BUT* if it's required >> by the government/or any other organization or third party in the >> future for the sake of protecting the copyright laws then the feature will >> be available to support that as well. >> >>> Response: For shortest path maybe yes, hops or latency is important, >>> not for policy-based routing, in our case you might want to do >>> location-based routing, like, routing traffic coming from French >>> speaking users (in multi-language country like Canada) to google.fr >> >>> I'm not sure what you mean here. It is easy to redirect users from >>> google.com -> google.fr based on their application layer language >>> preference. >> >> Google.fr example is confusing many people, which I will modify, >> policy based routing has much more than routing tcp:80 traffic. >> >> -- >> Eitan Adler >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > geop...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
