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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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