IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
X-Original-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CF221F9D82 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eipEB4DEOvBe for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com (sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com [199.165.246.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A0F21F9CA4 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SEA-EXCAS-1.telecomsys.com (exc2010-local1.telecomsys.com [10.32.12.186]) by sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r6VGWXbT027245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:32:34 -0700
Received: from SEA-EXMB-2.telecomsys.com ([169.254.2.68]) by SEA-EXCAS-1.telecomsys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:32:33 -0700
From: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
Thread-Index: AQHOjecFBBIaZhZWXU21e5MLOQormJl/LzcAgAAB3QCAAAJZAIAAAiWAgAABloCAAAS3AIAAAJyAgAAB6gCAAAJzAP//tfcQ
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:32:32 +0000
Message-ID: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC3A4CAF@SEA-EXMB-2.telecomsys.com>
References: <CACWXZj3kKwXTx85NLWMcum-21foHcESNKaiYSUELNfwM8UP5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXGT5jaGrMaA_6+DEJW2Nq3VVFALFH3HC6aoQFhJWrX9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPrzE2dFNocXg_1OY1_rq0ZRznsMBzLKpviLphUOmfgtXBCNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWs-XzzX6gh5J3NUfFBYvAVbr-F7+UmM_az3tZipy0qhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOPrzE24CXRAfJtNtekLcbR7RiGqDjqAMvt7ftYR9=r8mBvomg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU+jcVx6=+i=OuA8=8U32HYpr92tJDXNPjXDhYBua1CDw@mail.gmail.com> <F58BBB12-65FC-44B8-AB8B-DB5FCB7B2F7B@cs.columbia.edu> <CABkgnnVu4mB0956+QRcgJCRCMWsFCYUq2zwR-Xu2BpRDnfZeUA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUC57BuOGYesnkxxpMwsYjFAoFfMQ8xe=uYTpSsS1UESA@mail.gmail.com> <7273FCC2-82ED-48DD-8FBF-E8D8A8085244@cs.columbia.edu> <CABkgnnX5AJRe+yneouGQ0dWkPfOcxgj=2baxku6tfkvU6c-vmw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnX5AJRe+yneouGQ0dWkPfOcxgj=2baxku6tfkvU6c-vmw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.32.12.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:33:46 -0000

I support these two drafts moving forward.  And, rather than having to figure out some ideal way to display confidence as a gating factor right now, once we have real values conveyed, we can likely figure out something useful .  

These two drafts promote the ability to report actual numeric values.  That's a good place to start.  Leaving the value(s) as implied or assumed just doesn't make for good engineering.

-roger marshall.

-----Original Message-----
From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:41 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03

On 31 July 2013 15:32, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> But can you capture these provisioning problems in any kind of confidence indication? If an error occurs that places a Berlin base station in Orlando (e.g., due to a typo in the long/lat data), the notion of a confidence ring doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You cannot capture these sorts of errors in an *uncertainty* indication (larger circles, etc..)  But the purpose of confidence is to say: the location you have is probably correct 68% of the time, based on what I know about similar situations.

Thus, if you have a large and dodgy database (say of WiFi access
points) that has a particular high, but historically known, error rate, you can factor that into any expression of confidence.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email