Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03

[Laura Liess <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

I will try to find out if DT has any information on this issue.
Anyway, having the draft published with the huge disclaimer would be better
than leaving to national bodies to add the field (because they will do it
for sure without disclaimer).

Thank you
Laura


2013/7/31 Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>

> I have opposed this draft in the past, because it makes uncertaintyn(and
> confidence) useless at the receiver.  In the environments I am aware of,
> when both are provided,  both are IGNORED, because no one had any idea what
> to do with it.  If the confidence is fixed at 95%, most users consider the
> uncertainty area to represent a search area, in which the target will be
> found, allowing for the 5 % possibility that it won't.
>
> The draft says that the problem is that the sender may not have enough
> information to do an accurate conversion to a confidence of 95%. True, but
> the recipient has even less information.  It would be better to get the
> sender to do the conversion than to expect the recipient to do it.
>
> The only reason to have confidence at less than 95% is to make uncertainty
> appear smaller.  It's marketing.
>
> I challenge anyone who supports this for any reason other than "my
> regulator told me to" to describe how you would display a location on a
> map when confidence ranges between 50 and 95% in some way that a human
> could understand it, or describe an automaton that can actually use the
> data in some useful way in the same circumstances.
>
> If we have to solve a "my regulator told me to", okay, but I want a huge
> disclaimer that screams don't do this.
>
> Brian
>
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> I'm prepared to revive these drafts if there is sufficient interest in
>> doing so.  Either or both.
>>
>> Both are, in my opinion at least, in a fairly good state.  Uncertainty
>> has actually had a lot of review.
>>
>> On 31 July 2013 13:56, Laura Liess <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Martin,
>> >
>> > The German regulator requires the confidence to be sent to the PSAP.
>>  The
>> > regulator requirements are based on the ETSI specification, where
>> confidence
>> > is required, too.
>> >
>> > We do not have a confidence element in PIDF-LO today. Your draft
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03.txt proposes
>> > this but it is currently expired. Is it possible for you to submit the
>> > document again? I think this time we have a clear usecase for it.
>> > Publishing this draft as an RFC would avoid national and maybe
>> incompatible
>> > extensions.
>> >
>> > In this context I think the draft
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07.txt is
>> also a
>> > very useful document to educate people on how to use uncertainty and
>> > confidence and that tey are used in the wrond way. I think it would be
>> > usefull to get it published.
>> >
>> > Please find below the link to the German regulatory requirements
>> including
>> > the requirement to send the confidence (Tables I4-A-5 and I4-A-7).
>> > Unfortunately, I couldn't find an english version.
>> >
>> http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Notruf/TRNotruf.pdf;jsessionid=9741B92CDD3B4D7F25572343E81727F5?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
>> >
>> > Thank you
>> > Laura
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>