IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.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 8713621F9DBE for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 MsErBaBZomVM for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1738911E8187 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr13so701199pbb.6 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=2kKpqR7NmirUGwrtqJXOntlFr1GSwpejxSUZ56V8wXE=; b=i4AxGurUaahshHm8pVuK0binBhHCvxXq4nJmTJLvIlBVP7MNkfp8dFr4un2n93ejN8 1y1m7TJI1IMSLykjEZQtQ8rXLmxpO3dqNvSVzrPk5fEukCebl953Od3Z4E3O2eLwhTlk CGjWLOIfgObM9sUKceBVG9U18w+eqQmu/KVIz53x7jyE8NmH6s5hqNcLaQ2YPeE8pC5p qWo+1UMvDDi7tC9oc1OrryaNtnndAF5mb6ar863q1guF0gndR6OQmcMrPv1+7HLzJA0/ SJyC6FD61W0mDou41pEUfDwdik6BNYkItaf66IZkXBo1v+408kK539HMfTmbmsY7g8th skFg==
X-Received: by 10.68.170.4 with SMTP id ai4mr63767656pbc.86.1375272719793; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (124-170-227-29.dyn.iinet.net.au. [124.170.227.29]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z14sm1867345pbt.0.2013.07.31.05.11.57 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CACWXZj3kKwXTx85NLWMcum-21foHcESNKaiYSUELNfwM8UP5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXGT5jaGrMaA_6+DEJW2Nq3VVFALFH3HC6aoQFhJWrX9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXGT5jaGrMaA_6+DEJW2Nq3VVFALFH3HC6aoQFhJWrX9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C78F496A-277A-40A2-BDEF-73E471D5B2A1@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A523)
From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:11:56 +1000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 12:12:05 -0000

I agree Martin and I would like to see both progress.

Sent from my iPad

On 31/07/2013, at 10:10 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> 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 <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com> 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
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email