Re: [Sipping-emergency] PIDF-LO Emergency Additions for consideration

Below is good with one exception:

I think the 802.11 method type should be unique, as it has some unique 
properties associated with distance (within) from the Access Point antenna 
that might prove useful from an accuracy/resolution point of view during 
the dispatch of police/fire/ambulance personnel.

At 09:52 AM 3/14/2004 -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>1.     by what mechanism did the UAC receive its LI from (.11, GPS,
>>     manual entry, Triangulation, DHCP) by name, not number
>>     i.e: *not*
>>     1=GPS
>>     2=DHCP
>>     etc
>>     I think this list is going to have to be IANA registered for this
>>     effort for consistency.
>
>Indeed. This would be something simple like
>
><method>gps</method>
>
>(I think <method> more clearly distinguishes this from the next item below.)
>
>Text could be something like:
>
>The <method> element describes the way that the location information in 
>the location object was derived. Its value is drawn from a set of 
>IANA-registered tokens that include
>
>GPS: Global Positioning System
>
>A-GPS: GPS with assistance
>
>manual: entered manually by an operator or user, e.g., based on subscriber 
>billing or service location information
>
>DHCP: provided by DHCP [geo,civil]
>
>triangulation: triangulated from time-of-arrival, signal strength or 
>similar measurements
>
>cell: location of the cellular radio antenna or 802.11 access point
>
>
>>2.    what organization was that LI field value provided by (in the
>>     form of a URI)
>
><provided-by>sip:foo@bar.com</provided-by>
>
>One question is whether (2) is meant for human consumption or for some 
>robot. If human consumption, we don't have to say much more than 'URI 
>identifying the entity that calculated the geospatial or civil location 
>information. This allows the recipient to determine, for example, if the 
>location information was provided by the target itself or some third party 
>and may allow the recipient to contact the entity identified by the URI to 
>report errors.'.
>
>If suitable for a robot, we would have to define what kind of information 
>such a robot would find useful, such as
>
>- some standard-format contact information (like a vCard)
>- some description of the likely accuracy of the measurement method
>
>I think at this point we need to provide precise text. If we're unable to 
>do that, it probably indicates that the concepts are too fuzzy and 
>insufficiently baked for inclusion.
>
>Henning

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

_______________________________________________
Sipping-emergency mailing list
Sipping-emergency@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-emergency