Re: [Geopriv] Direction for draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci

["Marc Linsner" <[e-mail]>]

James,

In-line...

> 
> I don't quite not where to start since your response is so 
> utterly incorrect, and full of misrepresentations.

Do you agree that self-measured location determination either doesn't
support 'uncertainty' or supports it via the use of significant digits?

Do you agree that network-measured location determination provides
'uncertainty' as additional data points to the position data?

> 
> You seem to imply that 3825 is about "self-measuring" device, 
> there is no mention of this in 3825 at all. In fact 3825 says:

There must be something lost in the translation process between northern and
southern hemisphere :^).  I never stated that 3825 is any kind of device.  I
stated that 3825 supports the data output from common self-measuring
location determination mechanisms.  These mechanisms are most akin to
building the wire-map database that dhcp would utilize in support of the LCP
function.


> 
> "This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [1]
>    Option for the coordinate-based geographic location of the 
> client, to
>    be provided by the server."
> 
> To me this is clearly a network determined location, or is 
> the DHCP server in the end-device?

I am not going to answer this ridiculous question.  And I do believe you
understand the difference between the location measuring piece of location
determination vs. wiremap data and the act of passing this data to the end
host.

> 
> Just to cut your response before you start, I have wandered 
> around quite large areas of Dallas in the past with a 
> differential GPS unit that quite clearly provided me with a 
> location as a circle, point with radius, and not a "thick point".

OK, good, you've now got experience.

Would you agree this application utilized a self-measured location
determination mechanism?

Was the circle, point with radius coming from the actual GPS or due to the
resolution of the map data?

If it was coming from the actual GPS function, what standard NMEA sentence
was used to pass the 'uncertainty' data to the map function?

Was the uncertainty conveyed from the gps to the map function as additional
data to the position data?

Or was the uncertainty value conveyed from the gps to the map function
derived from 'significant digits'?

> 
> Our position of representing uncertainty comes from NIST. But 
> as you point out, NIST is a cellular telephone technology 
> provider that is interested only in network determined locations.
> 
> I asked John S, a very simple question in an email yesterday, 
> that he has declined to respond to, I think that the answer 
> to that question would solve a great deal of trouble. Just in 
> case it got lost in the noise, I shall provide a link to it here:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg05189.html

I noticed your question and view it again as an attempt to take this
conversation down the road of comparing the merits of self-measured location
determination mechanisms to network-measured location determination
mechanisms.  Again, I going to ask that these types of debates take place in
a the proper venue, not the IETF.

-Marc-


_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv