Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Offered Text into PIDF-LO ID

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:31:51 -0500

The information is needed to track a problem when the location failed to
be accurate for some reason.  Sometimes it's retrospectively, sometimes its
actually real time while someone is on an emergency call.  They get this
kind of information now, and that's why they are so keen to keep it.

We'll probably develop standards for what you should find at the URI,
some kind of XML document for example.  We socialized the idea with the
emergency call folks at NENA.  They were insistent that they needed the
information, and the URI seemed to be adequate.  We have worked pretty
hard on the words to make sure that other uses beyond emergency calling
consider the privacy issues.  We do consider the information to be
generally useful, beyond emergency calling, but clearly understand that
the benefits have to be balanced by the privacy issues, and we do think
the wording considers that balance fairly.

We need this now, please.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:06 AM
> To: James M. Polk
> Cc: Peterson, Jon; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Offered Text into PIDF-LO ID
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 23, 2004, at 7:18 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> >
> >    Users should be aware that this information can inadvertently
> >    provide additional information to the receiver, increasing the
> >    effective resolution of the geospatial or civil information. For
> >    example, if the LO includes only state-level 
> information, including
> >    that the location information was provided by Columbia University
> >    provides a strong indication that the Target is actually 
> located in
> >    a four-block area in Manhattan.
> >
> 
> I consider this a red flag.  The purpose of this group is to consider 
> privacy in the sending of location information, and this 
> simply ignores 
> the issue.  That is not to say that I disfavor this idea.  I simply 
> think it requires much more thought.
> 
> For instance, what purpose does the URI serve?  Does an emergency 
> response center actually do lookups in whois based on the domain name 
> in a URI?  Is sip:[email-masked] really going to help me during a 911 
> call?  I think not.  It will more likely go unanswered, as is common 
> when most people attempt to contact my ISP via any other means than 
> email or their web-based complaint form.  In this case, all that has 
> been done is that the privacy constraints have been ignored.
> 
> I think something more than a URI is needed for this to be useful.
> 
> Again, I do not have any objection to hammering out this 
> idea.  I just 
> don't believe we have thought it through with enough detail 
> to include 
> it in the base PIDF-LO spec.
> 
> So, can this be done as an extension?
> 
> -andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:43:39 -0500

> kind of information now, and that's why they are so keen to keep it.

They currently get a URI of unspecified scheme pointing to an 
unspecified resource?

If not, then we aren't giving them what they have today.

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:53:18 -0500

They currently get a 'NENA identifier', which points to a database: 
http://www.nena.org/companyid/index.htm

It would seem inappropriate to specify this level of detail in an IETF 
spec, but NENA could (within their domain of influence) tell location 
providers to supply a specific URL format and scheme, similar to the 
conventions that we have discussed in the SIP working groups for, say, 
voicemail.

This is easy to do, but somebody else's job, I believe.

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:42:52 -0500

Andy,

Having spent a couple of days at the NENA meeting a couple of weeks 
ago, but not having a likely close continuing relationship with NENA 
(as Brian, James, others may have), let me be blunt about my personal 
view of the situation.  Many people at NENA (including I believe at 
least part of the NENA leadership) want to do emergency-over-IP 
right, and they are interested in working with folks from the IETF to 
get it right.  But many other people at NENA -- particularly some 
people in (or with long or close relationships with) the telephone 
network -- would be eager for any excuse to derail a transistion to 
IP, and to make IP communications a semi-permanent second class 
citizen in the U.S. emergency world.  The level of anti-IP rhetoric 
was at times breathtaking, and there is no doubt in my mind that many 
would argue against using PIDF-LO if it lacks the couple of fields 
James proposes.  They would instead propose a backwards-looking 
approach that tries to replicate exactly what they have now and have 
it transported over their 30 year old telephone trunk lines.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that you or the IETF roll over -- 
the questions you raise are important.  But I would strongly support 
trying to include something like what James proposes in the first 
round of PIDF-LO.  And the upside is, in my mind, the jump start that 
PIDF-LO would be given (for both emergency and non-emergency usage) 
if NENA adopts it as the standard way for vendors/providers to 
communicate location to ECCs in the U.S.

Before clicking on "send" I just received your "provided-by too 
vague", and I read that to suggest that you are trying to work this 
out, which I appreciate.   I thought it would still be worthwhile for 
me to send this message.

John