IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> Wed, 31 July 2013 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <br@brianrosen.net>
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 A293021F9EE9 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 eBwYqNRjrABf for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37A421F8F4A for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id up15so743443pbc.12 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Cdwyu/Fg5fgL3MD9KkFU7lNEExuegu7ZwnXpHmd5qYY=; b=ESBSSisb+iHFff6uoUtS/AcBgYaOzOpBYeYOAOa0CE7VkoCFqkO/bKMMqPo71J2q22 RfuVzSC+fCmJ1KhNgOZdtjPPn6fdWPlKYFi46mYOhVYp2j83V/97qiR+Lrqf9qfvdYR5 Y3yrGDN4s31bZuxVHlbxr3N/dKRtxT5AIpDywU/LwEwRoPkIe8f430SAO2dfdV3Cmc3s Z35fYtep76v4YzH9HKPal+/iF3h1duDAXs5LhfX1m1YOkG13Dzpk9V87J+eD+39DoFKZ sPqFU7ttngKFxlieivObIdRyjqM9PdNbqyH3D70beWta2Pe1XmcB8UPEL8OxbwkJjRbs JGwQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.224.161 with SMTP id rd1mr80181834pbc.121.1375275204618; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.23.225 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:df8:0:80:996f:b3fe:a458:ff8f]
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWs-XzzX6gh5J3NUfFBYvAVbr-F7+UmM_az3tZipy0qhw@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:53:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOPrzE24CXRAfJtNtekLcbR7RiGqDjqAMvt7ftYR9=r8mBvomg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff24ff60a334f04e2ce367a"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnqUIn/x8x1GG/5zrQRPy23soDYiYWYBK7bQJhANiNrqICJFRiabEGJdOJXKrdzgFFMTXBP
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 12:53:41 -0000

As I understand it, all of this is statistics, and the location
determination mechanisms could produce 95% confidence, but some vendors
choose not to.

But back to the challenge.  If you allow confidence to vary, how do you
display the data, or how do you use it I a downstream system?

Brian
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013, Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 31 July 2013 14:38, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > The only reason to have confidence at less than 95% is to make
> uncertainty
> > appear smaller.  It's marketing.
>
> That's just not true.  Unless you are the entity performing location
> determination, it is impossible to increase confidence in location.
> And in the systems that the folks on this list are talking about rely
> on location determination that does not produce 95% confidence.  This
> is an interoperability issue.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email