Subject: [Geopriv] What do about RFC3825?

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:09:48 -0500

Hi All,

It was shown quite clearly at IETF-71 that RFC-3825, as written, is not
suitable for conveying uncertainty and that the use of the precision
bits is more than a little unclear. There was discussion about a draft
being written to clarify these points and to work towards a solution to
address these concerns, AFAIK no such draft was submitted for this
upcoming IETF. This is quite disappointing given that this topic ate
over a third of the agenda time in Philly and it still leaves us in the
position that we have a rather broken specification floating out. 

The only proposal that has been put into draft form that adequately
addresses the problems in RFC3825 is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-02 I am urging
people on the list to read this document and voice any technical
concerns to the list. In the absence of any serious technical issues I
am going to be requesting that the chair call a hum on this document to
be adopted as the way to move forward with correcting 3825.

Cheers
James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

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

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:05:02 -0400

On 2008Jul15, at 8:09 PM, Winterbottom, James wrote:

> bits is more than a little unclear.

No, the point was, as I think EKR summarized most clearly, that  
providing location hiding, which RFC 3825 provided, was not able to  
also provide an arbitrary surround for a particular point.  Another  
point, which Henning made, was that a table relating resolution to  
measurement error, rather than the algorithm provided in ../binary- 
lci, would help more implementers.

> There was discussion about a draft
> upcoming IETF.

What urgency do you attribute to the draft that might resolve this?

Without some justification of urgency on the list, why should the WG  
pursue alternatives right now?

> This is quite disappointing given that this topic ate

There is no consensus that the WG should now obsolete its previous  
work, and therefore no reason to consider a personal draft, which is  
not within the WG charter and has not been accepted as a WG effort.

John

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:48:53 -0500

John,

My urgency to resolve this issue is that 3825 encoding is continually
being touted as suitable for providing location for emergency services
purposes, which, without very clear profiling it is not! See examples
previously provided numerous times.

Secondly, despite claims by some of the authors of this document that
the encoding is unsuitable for wireless applications, there is an up
take in certain wireless environment of this encoding technique with the
assumption that geopriv did its homework in this area, which it clearly
did not!

You will note that the document I site below is an update to 3825 to
actually make the precision bits useful for the purposes of expressing
uncertainty. How a Target fuzzes location should be done outside the
scope of this encoding, indeed the new geopolicy document describes some
techniques on how this can be achieved more effectively than any method
proposed by LCI.

Regards
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2008 12:05 PM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] What do about RFC3825?
> 
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:12:50 -0500

John -

I was (as chair) expecting a draft from you before the -00 deadline.

I was under the impression that you had conflicts that caused you to  
miss that deadline, but would be getting to this soon.

If that's not the case, we need to discuss a different way to capture  
the conversations.

The _has_ been WG desire expressed to write down what we discussed.  
Are you still willing to do that writing, and soon?

RjS

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:56:57 -0400

Yes, I still plan to write an update draft, as we discussed in  
Philadelphia.

I don't know about "soon".  My new job takes precedence.  If I  
understood the urgency (not just importance), that might help me  
adjust my priorities.

John

On 2008Jul16, at 2:12 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> If that's not the case, we need to discuss a different way to  
> capture the conversations.
>