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

More detail is better, so I agree with your suggestion of splitting 
things. I would suggest that once we have reached closure in this 
subgroup, that we send text to the geopriv mailing list, so that it is 
part of the official last-call record.

James M. Polk wrote:

> 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