Re: [netmod] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sat, 17 July 2021 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF083A269F; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Bu0jsmwH1Jqg; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 303513A26A4; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 16HNOuC7027738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 17 Jul 2021 19:25:01 -0400
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:24:56 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location@ietf.org, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net
Message-ID: <20210717232456.GH74365@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <162146723152.27764.1299479086437558158@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2fsy9cdhl.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org> <20210717173321.GE74365@kduck.mit.edu> <m2h7gssrqq.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org> <20210717221418.GF74365@kduck.mit.edu> <C86851A1-66E3-44CA-A7BB-1ECD7E5AD59D@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <C86851A1-66E3-44CA-A7BB-1ECD7E5AD59D@chopps.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/6AA0WY_PBtHYZh2ZcvSI4PnYTdQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 23:25:11 -0000

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 07:17:09PM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jul 17, 2021, at 6:14 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > So, when we refine the coord-accuracy and height-accuracy for an
> > instantiation of the grouping, what does that mean?
> 
> It’s supposed to mean the accuracy of the measurement that is recorded in the grouping. So if the coord-accuracy is .1 and the measurement is lat/long then the accuracy is within 1/10 of a decimal degree. if the measurement is in cart coordinates the accuracy would be 100cm. I don’t think we need to make this anymore complex than that. Is there some text you would like to see to make that clearer?

The accuracy of the measurement with respect to what?  The coordinate
system, or the actual physical object?

And, if the concept here is that "I made a measurement, and my measurement
device reported a value to 1/10 of a decimal degree", that would typically
correspond to a "precision" rather than an "accuracy"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision).

In either case, I think that "accuracy of the measurement recorded in the
grouping" is a qualitatively different concept of "accuracy" than the
listed accuracy of the geodetic-datum, which (AIUI) relates to the maximum
deviation between the model of the object used by the coordinate system and
the actual physical object.  So it's not really clear that we should be
talking the one "overriding" the other.

-Ben