Re: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 11/27/13, 14:21 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <[e-mail]>, Ted Lemon writes:
>
>> I thought the point was for it to advise network geolocation survey bots
>> that the hotspot with this ssid is mobile and can't be used for
>> geolocation.
>>
>
> The point was for it to advise network survey bots that the hotspot
> with this ssid can't/shouldn't be recorded in any database.
>
> There are reasons to set this other than the ap is mobile.

While it is possible to set it for other reasons like privacy, I'm not 
sure the motivations/interests fully align for all parties for these 
other reasons.

Where as, with mobile APs and geolocation the motivations/interests of 
the parties fully align.  If you have a mobile AP and it is mapped in a 
location and then you move, your location will be inaccurate, therefore 
you should set the "_nomap" suffix.  And, if you are a geolocation 
provider and are mapping APs, you will create inaccurate information if 
you map mobile APs, and therefore it is in your interest to not map the 
location of APs with the "_nomap" suffix.

Opt in or out mechanisms only work when the parties interests are 
aligned.  So in reality I think both Mark and Ted are correct.

I'd support this being documented in an informational RFC, I'd like to 
see a full discussion of the advantages and disadvantages, as well as a 
call for a more formal solutions to this and some of the related issues 
in the thread.  Does Hotspot 2.0 or other Wifi Alliance stuff cover 
this?  Or at least there may be useful references there.

Thanks.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================