IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Geopriv] Some comments on draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-08

James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
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 9730D11E81B3 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:02:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 g7LV+MtmBxDM for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22e.google.com (mail-pd0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA8611E81DA for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z10so1148621pdj.19 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:02:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=7ssjxr9tet5V7PZaX20NNJbEhbMKbA9T7aXHK+nN9+Q=; b=ZJZO5KNfLu8P6QZ/MNmHRTuuEx50ilg+yroHfTl1aQ1uf770g4Jw9AWTu2Jda0q3sT 7HArBlIwF/MRob+XA2vqCml/Fmgo6mfLSV4x5EEIOu/UuUneoOuwb0iqdAHzjFpgBHMx kpALP4y2PA+QVWm/Xd7MKKVWcTjgxRyJq6lMyjFxPQWAZs+dfDETd/dZVw3ZrIqGsN6/ MRPBSDsCHfIkDociS52ccAqyKK8uI/msAJOm9EfGPwZXsuf4u5KoMOwb8qfazuY2BhKf +UfYnzVV9LO7zBWOTl+DiXlptB89rbi14wcwmc7j0Snc3zyrr/duh75NJZtr1kexmpb7 lebA==
X-Received: by 10.66.190.198 with SMTP id gs6mr11584076pac.49.1383858170469; Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:02:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (124-149-67-181.dyn.iinet.net.au. [124.149.67.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gh3sm7182544pbb.2.2013.11.07.13.02.48 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:02:49 -0800 (PST)
References: <CAOPrzE3Phx0anv9J3zrrBozsf4p0TJk+KZYWZz_hA_=9FyZnOA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAOPrzE3Phx0anv9J3zrrBozsf4p0TJk+KZYWZz_hA_=9FyZnOA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-9EE4F6A5-14FB-4899-A43B-7B85819D8EB8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B700712C-1899-494C-9E28-02BC62AE81C3@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B329)
From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:02:48 +1100
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Cc: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Some comments on draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-08
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:02:55 -0000

Hi Brian,

Can you give an example of point 2 please?
I guess all the systems that I am familiar with use the area to express the uncertainty so I am keen to understand how it might be done differently.

Cheers
James

Sent from my iPad

On 08/11/2013, at 7:48 AM, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:

> I’ve read this draft, and think it is an excellent explanation of the issues we face in geopriv with measurements.  I highly recommend that we adopt the draft and process it as a work group item.  I am particularly happy with the definitions it offers for the various quantities.
> 
> 
> 
> I find it lacking in two areas:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think the draft needs to discuss the issues of comparing measurements with different confidence.  I think the bottom line on that is: don’t do it, use one agreed upon confidence.
> 
> 2. I think we need to stop expressing measurements as just the uncertainty area.  While I understand why doing so is attractive, I think it is not what real systems do.  Real systems express a measurement and explicitly state the uncertainty of the measurement.  I think we need a way to express that.
> 
> 
> 
> Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email