Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com> Mon, 26 August 2013 20:30 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 2C28E21F960E for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 EnGZBbBLkZIU for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:30:24 -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 16B7721F9D65 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SEA-EXCAS-2.telecomsys.com (exc2010-local2.telecomsys.com [10.32.12.187]) by sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7QKUJ0q025291 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:30:20 -0700
Received: from SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com ([169.254.1.145]) by SEA-EXCAS-2.telecomsys.com ([10.32.12.187]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:30:19 -0700
From: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
To: 'Martin Thomson' <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
Thread-Index: AQHOkEodoTdabvj/d0Cy5Axkh9D4YJmoFVBQ
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:30:19 +0000
Message-ID: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC3EDEDE@SEA-EXMB-1.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> <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC3A4CAF@SEA-EXMB-2.telecomsys.com> <CABkgnnXGP6ZkojE-iEd8HeMgHLqJ7yvHe4yNQzDdagke=jHPsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXGP6ZkojE-iEd8HeMgHLqJ7yvHe4yNQzDdagke=jHPsg@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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:30:29 -0000
Martin: I think the text is good enough for now - for inclusion. -roger. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 6:05 AM To: GEOPRIV WG; Brian Rosen Cc: Roger Marshall Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03 On 31 July 2013 18:32, Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com> wrote: > 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 makes a good point. However, having spoken with Brian, I think that it is important to highlight the implications of expressing confidence, with an appropriate amount of discouragement. This is really only for cases where it's difficult to get location with a high confidence. I've done a little editing, though I don't know if this is actually going to make sense, since it was all done on the train, and I don't remember the entire journey because I was so tired, but here's what I'm proposing to add to the draft. 2.2. Consuming and Presenting Confidence The inclusion of confidence that is anything other than 95% presents a potentially difficult usability for applications that use location information. Effectively communicating the probability that a location is incorrect to a user can be difficult. It is inadvisable to simply display locations of any confidence, or to display confidence in a separate or non-obvious fashion. If locations with different confidence levels are displayed such that the distinction is subtle or easy to overlook - such as using fine graduations of color or transparency for graphical uncertainty regions, or displaying uncertainty graphically, but providing confidence as supplementary text - a user could fail to notice a difference in the quality of the location information that might be significant. Depending on the circumstances, different ways of handling confidence might be appropriate. [I-D.thomson-geopriv-uncertainty] describes techniques that could be appropriate for consumers that use automated processing as well as background on the issue. Providing that the full implications of any choice for the application are understood, some amount of automated processing could be appropriate. In a simple example, applications could choose to discard or suppress the display of location information if confidence does not meet a pre-determined threshold. In settings where there is an opportunity for user training, some of these problems might be mitigated by defining different operational procedures for handling location information at different confidence levels. Now that I look at it, it's a lot of text, so it can probably be cut down, but I think that it conveys the right sentiment. 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.
- [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geo… Laura Liess
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… James Winterbottom
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… James Winterbottom
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… g.caron@bell.ca
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… James Winterbottom
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Laura Liess
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Roger Marshall
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… James Winterbottom
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Roger Marshall
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Roger Marshall
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… James Winterbottom
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Laura Liess
- Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson… Martin Thomson