Subject: RE: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l o -profile-00

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:26:11 -0500

Oops, was not aware of the z dependent routing. 

Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 11:42 AM
To: Marc Berryman; James M. Polk; Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: GEOPRIV; Marc Linsner
Subject: Re: AW: [Geopriv]
Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l o -profile-00

Henning has given examples where routing is dependent on z.  One is 
where you have an enterprise, which could be a university, which has its

own response capability.  The enterprise could occupy a portion of a 
high rise.

Sending both is aways fine with me, as long as you know what the data 
really means. Routing has to be fast and unambigous.  If you get 
multiple locations, however they are represented in the signaling, you 
need to choose one to route on.  To me, that would be the "orignal", 
civic or geo.  Of course we may have the problem of multiple locations 
because multiple entities have their own mechanisms.  We need ways of 
representing them so that we can decide which of them to use for 
routing.  This is a "truth in labeling" problem.

Brian

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:42:40 -0500

>Oops, was not aware of the z dependent routing.

there is a small niche set of examples of this, the university occupying 
part of a building and having their own response personel is one example, 
but the most compelling one is when a government agency occupies part of a 
building with their own repsonse personel. This is actually crossing not a 
desired, but a necessary jurisdicational boundary.

But, this will not happen very often.

Also, I'd like to think that all devices within that federal agency talk to 
their own service when calling for an emergency first. This will be a 
function of the configuration of the VVoIP network within that agency's 
devices, I should think, and not necessarily something the general public's 
DHCP protocol should have to account for.

we're getting a bit away from the 80/20 rule and towards the
99.99999999/0.00000001 rule with the later number dictating some of our 
directions/positions

>routing.  This is a "truth in labeling" problem.

cheers,
James

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