Re: [ietf-privacy] Nits about draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-06.txt

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,
At 09:55 11-04-2013, Martin Thomson wrote:
>Ah yes, I'm not sure whether this was made explicit in this draft
>(probably not), but we take the view that the Device is a proxy for a
>user (Target in geopriv-parlance).  In terms of protocols and location
>determination that's the only reasonable assumption to make.  That's a
>really important point though, not something we should be taking on
>faith.  I'll make sure to add a note.

I don't disagree with the above.  I guess that the easier path is to 
add a note.  Alissa mentioned referencing Section 3.2 of RFC 6280.

>I don't know where you are going with the "unknowingly informant
>model", but it's true that in some cases, measurements that are
>provided to a LIS might not be useful. If your LIS is operated by a
>cellular operator, then maybe (though it's only a maybe) the cellular
>operator wont be able to use the information to improve a location
>estimate.  Similarly, they might not know how to deal with GLONASS
>pseudoranges.

In easy terms the "unknowingly informant model" is about a device 
providing information related to other people; i.e. data collection 
of information not belonging to the Target.

>Implementations have choices on the spectrum between: provide nothing
>and see if the LIS asks for more information; and provide everything
>and don't worry about the extra stuff.  The latter choice actually has
>some implications with respect to performance and time, so most likely
>it will go somewhere in between the two.

Thanks for explaining this.

Regards,
-sm