Re: [Geopriv] Geopriv Digest, Vol 110, Issue 12

[Robin Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Todd - 

I don't in any way mean this as a contradiction of what you said, but just for clarification…. when you say "having solved this issue", do you mean that you've documented a solution, or that Martin has done so, or that the problem has been generally solved and privacy-enhancing "range" solutions for location indicators are widely deployed and adopted?

… because I'd challenge the last of those assertions… much as I would love it to be the case.  ;^)

Yrs.,
Robin


Robin Wilton
Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy
Internet Society

email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Twitter: @futureidentity




On 1 Aug 2013, at 15:16, tsg wrote:

> On 07/31/2013 10:02 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 
> Martin - having solved this same issue with the 'range' function within any location-indicator-token about 10 years ago I find it interesting that you are rehashing the same old issues.
> 
> Todd
>> On 31 July 2013 22:23, Yuan Yang <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>     There is a hot talk about uncertainty of positon information or
>>> position estimations. Besides, the position-related measurements also
>>> contain much uncertainness, which has not been associated.
>>> 
>>>     We may need clarify the position uncertainty and the measurement
>>> uncertainty. Is that useful to add a definition and an effect of
>>> measurement uncertainty in draft-jones-geopriv-sigpos-survey-02?
>> 
>> Hi Yuan,
>> 
>> I'd encourage you to read
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07.
>> 
>> I think that this includes the definitions that you are talking about.
>> 
>> --Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> // Standard "perasonal email" disclaimers apply
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv