[Geopriv] draft-hoene-geopriv-bli

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2494328C0D7 for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:52:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVLTeyho6bCT for <geopriv@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4712F28C11F for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8QAF+81kyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbAAcoWlxnjaaW4VIBIRYhX2DCg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,311,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="282272978"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2010 22:52:19 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.2] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA7MnhEs023912 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:52:18 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 15:52:38 -0700
Message-Id: <F7FAA48F-A7E4-44AC-B21F-D99C3A6B21FD@cisco.com>
To: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Subject: [Geopriv] draft-hoene-geopriv-bli
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 22:52:00 -0000

I like this and I think it would help with some very interesting sensor fusion and really like the idea. Given this data you propose in the draft, you could combine measurements made at the same time but it would be much harder to combine a measurements made at slightly different times. If you include the state about the dynamics,, then it would be much easier to do that. I'm not saying this well but for example with the Kalman filter, if you included some n'th order linear estimate of the how the dynamics were of the measurement vector and covariance evolved over time - so basically just whatever the Kalman filter is using to compute the predicted of the a prior estimate. 

Similarly with particle filters - having the information in the document so the receiving side could do the prediction step would help merge measurements made at different times. 

Cullen