IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Wed, 31 July 2013 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
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 1BBEC11E8100 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 DzI12TWETcXO for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (rambutan.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EA211E8147 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-431d.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-431d.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.67.29]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6VD6esx009840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:06:42 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU+jcVx6=+i=OuA8=8U32HYpr92tJDXNPjXDhYBua1CDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:06:45 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F58BBB12-65FC-44B8-AB8B-DB5FCB7B2F7B@cs.columbia.edu>
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>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.5
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 13:06:55 -0000

On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 July 2013 14:53, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
>> As I understand it, all of this is statistics, and the location
>> determination mechanisms could produce 95% confidence, but some vendors
>> choose not to.
> 
> It is not always possible to simply scale up at the location generator either.

I'm assuming that's because errors do not have an approximately normal (Gaussian) distribution for some or all location determination methods?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email