RE: [Geopriv] draft-hdesinen-geopriv-pidflo-extn-00.txt

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;br@brianrosen.net>
Date: Thu Jul 20 2006 - 21:34:04 EDT

My memory of why the method exists is to deal with multiple locations.
Knowing how they were derived may tell you which one you want to use for a
specific purpose.

In the emergency case, we keep simplifying so we don't have to make such
decisions. I think that's a good idea.

I don't want to deprecate method. I just don't see the need for the list of
alternatives (nor for the list of protocols).

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us]
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:25 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: 'Edge, Stephen'; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-hdesinen-geopriv-pidflo-extn-00.txt
>
> Forgive me, this isn't my use case... I'm only trying to understand it.
>
> On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>
> > No they don't care HOW you got location, they just want you to tell
> > them
> > where you are so they can route it. They won't have any different
> > behavior
> > if the location you sent was determined by A-GPS or by TDOA. PSAPs
> > care
> > about things like confidence, but not about mechanism.
>
> Actually, RFC 4119 creates a "method" registry... which lists "A-
> GPS". As I recall the discussion around this, it was precisely about
> PSAPs using it to judge confidence in the location. Of course, this
> begs the question why the current mechanism isn't good enough.
>
> > Then, why is it interesting that the PIDF-LO has A-GPS in it? The
> > visited
> > network knows that already. It also knows what protocols are
> > supported.
> > The scenario you present is entirely within the visited network,
> > and the
> > protocol is between the VNR and the VNP, which is within one
> > domain, and can
> > use any protocol it likes. Conveying choices via the PIDF isn't
> > helping
> > anyone. There has to be a use case where the VNP doesn't know what
> > protocol
> > it needs to use to contact the VNR. I don't think such a case exists.
>
> My understanding was that the visited network doesn't know that the
> UAC supports A-GPS before hand. You are right that the protocol
> between the VNP and VNR is not our concern.
>
> -andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:34:04 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 20 2006 - 21:38:56 EDT