Re: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l o -profile-00

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Sat, 16 July 2005 03:01 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DtcwA-0003a7-Vk; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:01:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dtcw9-0003Zx-Mv for geopriv@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:01:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA27966 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:01:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from jalapeno.cc.columbia.edu ([128.59.29.5] ident=cu41754) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtdP2-0008Pv-Lo for geopriv@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:31:49 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.31] (pool-141-153-198-113.mad.east.verizon.net [141.153.198.113]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by jalapeno.cc.columbia.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6G31jkq003910 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:01:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <42D87865.3090706@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:00:53 -0400
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: Columbia University
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l o -profile-00
References: <911MAIL1wiZ9rWjAKYV0000270a@mail.911.org> <911MAIL1wiZ9rWjAKYV0000270a@mail.911.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20050715152347.02699010@email.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20050715152347.02699010@email.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 128.59.29.5
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org

I don't know how to estimate this percentage, but I have a local 
example: Columbia University occupies part of a building called the 
Interchurch Building on 125th Street in Manhattan (called that since it 
is also occupied by the HQ offices of a number of Christian 
denominations). In that particular case, they are actually spread across 
non-adjacent floors and maybe even partial floors.

We discussed other examples, such as high-security or clandestine 
installations in large office buildings. (The "classical" example were 
the offices of the ATF and CIA in the WTC.)

I agree that this is not likely to be common, but not terribly difficult 
to support, either, should the need arise in the future. Given that 
z-level information is carried in both civic and geo-derived formats, I 
don't see much of an issue should somebody decide to factor that into 
making routing decisions.

Henning


James M. Polk wrote:
> At 12:42 PM 7/15/2005 -0400, Brian Rosen wrote:
> 
>> Henning has given examples where routing is dependent on z.  One is 
>> where you have an enterprise, which could be a university, which has 
>> its own response capability.  The enterprise could occupy a portion of 
>> a high rise.
> 
> 
> ok... so what is the percentage of these cases really?
> 
> How often will z be a factor in the routing decision?
> 
> A tenth of a percent of all 911 calls made?
> A hundreth of a percent?
> a ten-thousanth of a percent?
> even less of a percent?
> 
> We're engineers who want to build an architecture as good as we can, but 
> we can't take the case of the above percentages of a chance to steer our 
> efforts. That's attempting to achieve too much without the imperical 
> evidence of experience to make those decisions.
> 
> I'm a statistician by nature, and I deal in Standard Deviations, and 2 
> is a good number to work towards, 3 is excellent, and 5 is unrealistic. 
> The percentages above are getting past 4 SDs and up towards (and past) 6 
> SDs.
> 
>> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> cheers,
> James
> 
>                                 *******************
>                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.


_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv