Re: [Geopriv] New indoor location - standards needed

"Rosen, Brian" <> Thu, 04 December 2014 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEE11A00B2 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:15:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MM2HCQZAb0Z5 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F241A00B6 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 11:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id sB4JA45x002159; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:15:29 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 1r2r318p04-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:15:29 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:15:28 -0500
From: "Rosen, Brian" <>
To: "Militeau, Christian" <>
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] New indoor location - standards needed
Thread-Index: AQHQD/aphE6sGKkPgUaMXMGuJQWkIw==
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 19:15:28 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B28BBA1@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-luc> <p0624060dd0a5a3cce274@[]> <51581CA9D0965243B6931E4CDEDF3E4504CFB3A160@lmv08-mx02.corp.intrado.pri>
In-Reply-To: <51581CA9D0965243B6931E4CDEDF3E4504CFB3A160@lmv08-mx02.corp.intrado.pri>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7642 signatures=670578
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
Cc: geopriv <>, Marc Linsner <>, "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <>, Randall Gellens <>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] New indoor location - standards needed
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:15:38 -0000

I see the problem differently.

While mobiles using licensed spectrum are clearly the biggest problem, any device that has a WiFi interface could use this mechanism to get a good location for an emergency call.  It isn’t using anything intrinsic to 3G/4G/5G systems.  It’s not a US-only problem.  Because you are linking multiple, independent networks, you need something like the IETF to do that work.


> On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Militeau, Christian <> wrote:
> Randy,
> I agree with your assessment. ATIS (along with NENA and APCO) is in the process of initiating planning to support standards development.
> Once ATIS has agreed on something, then it will be more clear on what the IETF needs to do for standards support.
> It is anticipated that there will be communications among SDOs (ATIS, 3GPP, IETF, IEEE, etc.) to discuss the support of a standards development plan and possibly coordination like we have done in the past with the Emergency Services Coordination Group.
> Regards,
> Christian 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geopriv [] On Behalf Of Randall Gellens
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:41 PM
> To: geopriv
> Cc: Marc Linsner (mlinsner); DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] New indoor location - standards needed
> I agree that there does appear to be standards work that may be needed, with a role for the IETF.  However, before we in the IETF in general or geopriv (or ecrit) in particular jump in with specific proposals, I think we need to understand the requirements and overall architecture.  Since we are discussing protocols to be used with cellular calls, we need to work with the cellular industry to be sure that what we develop meets their needs and will be used.
> To my knowledge, there has been very little discussion, much less agreement, by an industry-specific SDO such as ATIS (since we are talking about the U.S.). Once this is done, the objectives for the IETF, as well as industry groups, will become clear.  In addition the FCC has not issued any new mandate as of yet and is still in an NPRM process.
> Therefore, I think we need to wait until discussions on the requirements and architecture have further progressed by the industry groups.
> --
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- There is no unhappiness like the misery of sighting land (and work) again
> after a cheerful, careless voyage.                          -- Mark Twain
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list