IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"g.caron@bell.ca" <g.caron@bell.ca> Wed, 31 July 2013 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <g.caron@bell.ca>
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 BE7F421F9D39 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 yKblAq-CY9Ut for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB5E21F9D4F for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.158.137.67:51437] by server-13.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 54/48-27159-15009F15; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:17:21 +0000
X-Env-Sender: g.caron@bell.ca
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-139.messagelabs.com!1375272921!30857595!74
X-Originating-IP: [206.47.0.173]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.11; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 788 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2013 12:17:20 -0000
Received: from dm1c8f.bell.ca (HELO TLS.Exchange.Bell.ca) (206.47.0.173) by server-11.tower-139.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Jul 2013 12:17:20 -0000
Received: from hub03-wyn.bell.corp.bce.ca (142.182.199.49) by dm1c8f.exchange1.bell.ca (198.235.102.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.5; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:17:05 -0400
Received: from MBX02.bell.corp.bce.ca ([142.182.199.11]) by hub03-wyn.bell.corp.bce.ca ([142.182.199.49]) with mapi; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:17:05 -0400
From: "g.caron@bell.ca" <g.caron@bell.ca>
To: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:17:03 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03
Thread-Index: Ac6N5zLewJmAkXYmS361t2cKt//nLgAABOCQ
Message-ID: <0FEAC1C09868B34A982F4FB40254B37C2949B2FE68@MBX02.bell.corp.bce.ca>
References: <CACWXZj3kKwXTx85NLWMcum-21foHcESNKaiYSUELNfwM8UP5Vg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXGT5jaGrMaA_6+DEJW2Nq3VVFALFH3HC6aoQFhJWrX9Q@mail.gmail.com> <C78F496A-277A-40A2-BDEF-73E471D5B2A1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C78F496A-277A-40A2-BDEF-73E471D5B2A1@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 12:17:29 -0000

+1

As for Germany, there is a regulatory requirement in Canada to pass the confidence % and the uncertainty value along with the lat/long to PSAPs.

Guy

-----Message d'origine-----
De : geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de James Winterbottom
Envoyé : 31 juillet 2013 08:12
À : Martin Thomson
Cc : GEOPRIV WG
Objet : Re: [Geopriv] Progressing the draft draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03

I agree Martin and I would like to see both progress.

Sent from my iPad

On 31/07/2013, at 10:10 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm prepared to revive these drafts if there is sufficient interest in
> doing so.  Either or both.
> 
> Both are, in my opinion at least, in a fairly good state.  Uncertainty
> has actually had a lot of review.
> 
> On 31 July 2013 13:56, Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Martin,
>> 
>> The German regulator requires the confidence to be sent to the PSAP.  The
>> regulator requirements are based on the ETSI specification, where confidence
>> is required, too.
>> 
>> We do not have a confidence element in PIDF-LO today. Your draft
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-geopriv-confidence-03.txt  proposes
>> this but it is currently expired. Is it possible for you to submit the
>> document again? I think this time we have a clear usecase for it.
>> Publishing this draft as an RFC would avoid national and maybe incompatible
>> extensions.
>> 
>> In this context I think the draft
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-07.txt is also a
>> very useful document to educate people on how to use uncertainty and
>> confidence and that tey are used in the wrond way. I think it would be
>> usefull to get it published.
>> 
>> Please find below the link to the German regulatory requirements including
>> the requirement to send the confidence (Tables I4-A-5 and I4-A-7).
>> Unfortunately, I couldn't find an english version.
>> http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Notruf/TRNotruf.pdf;jsessionid=9741B92CDD3B4D7F25572343E81727F5?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
>> 
>> Thank you
>> Laura
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email