Re: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo -profile-00

First let me introduce myself to the list.  My name is Tim Dunn.  I currently operate my own consulting firm, but was a principal product manager for Openwave/Signalsoft during the time the wireless location standards for emergency services were being promulgated and then implemented in the US.  Prior to that, I was a PSAP manager for the City and County of Denver.  I maintain my standing within various NENA technical committees, having participated in those committees for some 7 or more years and have participated in various FCC, ATIS, ETSI and other forums.

I've been watching this thread over the past couple of days and find I have to respond.  As a point of reference, in Denver, we had a building (a movie theatre) which had the lobby in Denver, and the theater itself in a neighboring jurisdiction.  In cases such as these (to include WTC, the Interchurch Building and the like) there are typically agreements which have been set in place which discuss who is the first responder to a particular address, such as this movie theatre.  

Neighboring jurisdictions spend a great deal of time determining who is the first responder for whole addresses, corresponding to the city, county and sometimes state boundaries, not who occupies floors 1, 3 and 4 of a building.  If there is some sort of question as to which jurisdiction responds, the PSAP that is responsible for answering that call generally has responsibility for getting that call to a dispatcher who can send the correct unit(s).  This would be local police, fire or EMS or some other response arrangement such as mutual aid or calling the FBI or University Police or whatever arrangement has been agreed upon.

So, I'll suggest from the perspective of routing the call to the PSAP, routing on -z is not critical.  It is much more critical to provide as accurate a -z as possible (be it attached to Geo or Civic message format) to the PSAP calltakers' screens so they can provide it as a more granular location to the responding unit when they arrive.  

Tim Dunn
Timothy N. Dunn Consulting
timothydunn01@msn.com<mailto:timothydunn01@msn.com>

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Henning Schulzrinne<mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu> 
  To: James M. Polk<mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com> 
  Cc: GEOPRIV<mailto:geopriv@ietf.org> ; Marc Linsner<mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com> 
  Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:00 PM
  Subject: Re: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo -profile-00

  I don't know how to estimate this percentage, but I have a local 
  example: Columbia University occupies part of a building called the 
  Interchurch Building on 125th Street in Manhattan (called that since it 
  is also occupied by the HQ offices of a number of Christian 
  denominations). In that particular case, they are actually spread across 
  non-adjacent floors and maybe even partial floors.

  We discussed other examples, such as high-security or clandestine 
  installations in large office buildings. (The "classical" example were 
  the offices of the ATF and CIA in the WTC.)

  I agree that this is not likely to be common, but not terribly difficult 
  to support, either, should the need arise in the future. Given that 
  z-level information is carried in both civic and geo-derived formats, I 
  don't see much of an issue should somebody decide to factor that into 
  making routing decisions.

  Henning

  James M. Polk wrote:
  > At 12:42 PM 7/15/2005 -0400, Brian Rosen wrote:
  > 
  >> Henning has given examples where routing is dependent on z.  One is 
  >> where you have an enterprise, which could be a university, which has 
  >> its own response capability.  The enterprise could occupy a portion of 
  >> a high rise.
  > 
  > 
  > ok... so what is the percentage of these cases really?
  > 
  > How often will z be a factor in the routing decision?
  > 
  > A tenth of a percent of all 911 calls made?
  > A hundreth of a percent?
  > a ten-thousanth of a percent?
  > even less of a percent?
  > 
  > We're engineers who want to build an architecture as good as we can, but 
  > we can't take the case of the above percentages of a chance to steer our 
  > efforts. That's attempting to achieve too much without the imperical 
  > evidence of experience to make those decisions.
  > 
  > I'm a statistician by nature, and I deal in Standard Deviations, and 2 
  > is a good number to work towards, 3 is excellent, and 5 is unrealistic. 
  > The percentages above are getting past 4 SDs and up towards (and past) 6 
  > SDs.
  > 
  >> Brian
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > cheers,
  > James
  > 
  >                                 *******************
  >                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

  _______________________________________________
  Geopriv mailing list
  Geopriv@ietf.org<mailto:Geopriv@ietf.org>
  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>