Re: [Int-area] GPS over wifi

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 24 January 2020 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F33F120858 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:52:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tq-b_pYZ1U6S for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD5212011E for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.146.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 00OJqDmc003511 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:52:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1579895546; x=1579981946; i=@elandsys.com; bh=xVqaa+iEUKxesK5H+un7V3cpFkfyKOkMKFJ6ZHW8jG0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=EJBqcJnb55ro3i+jnB0/6PmhDBh4o6U2CeRcS+j7f3k32mY1u2wx+O27v8KJU2P/w u/iBrcgFCzSSnF9WlJ5wwUFRgpMPlb5G6jfKt4tcXwLD7SSqeS6J8fAl/vV+q2BQY9 YrUF1qRBP6nHZY+/fQos0O+Dh/napeu1AhOlg8iU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200124112344.0c381eb8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 11:51:59 -0800
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, int-area@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iK4ehg1nMrrzuTabM5iwSVy19hD6xvZXuHERwh91d+FiQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CANBjToUnvmmUYj=M1a2hET+E9XrWxz9omce-RjJuf9tbaaGO6A@mail.gmail.com> <CANBjToVsNZLvemoN7ttr7kOtcZMkaqOiH8Rh4miTXEv_znKLNg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200122050916.11f4f4d0@elandnews.com> <CAHw9_iK4ehg1nMrrzuTabM5iwSVy19hD6xvZXuHERwh91d+FiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/yxj_SThIgdQpUswBP8Ho5dsWQ18>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] GPS over wifi
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:52:31 -0000

Hi Warren,
At 01:10 PM 23-01-2020, Warren Kumari wrote:
>s/some work/lots of work/

Yes.

>The document talks about: "The Server, with the aforementioned outline
>code, knows the IP address of the WiFi hot spot." - this may come from
>a misunderstanding of how wireless networks are typically provided.
>When your device makes a connection to a server, the server sees an IP
>from a subnet which spans a large physical area (in the case of v6),
>or a NATed address which covers a subnet covering a large physical
>area (v4) -- the address (generally) isn't the address of the access
>point you connect to -- in order to improve the user experience (and
>make the network work better / easier to manage, etc) wireless
>networks try to let you keep the same address for as long as possible
>(see WiFi roaming, etc)

Thanks for elaborating on the above point.

>So, if this were to move forward, it would need a lot more work (and
>research into what already exists), and figure out if / how the
>granularity and privacy concerns can be addressed.
>I'm really not trying to dissuade you from this, but it will require a
>lot more fleshing out / and understanding of what already exists...

There is, for example, location information services.  A search on 
that should turn up a few RFCs as a starting point.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy