RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt

From: Roger Marshall ^lt;RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
Date: Thu Jun 21 2007 - 19:32:13 EDT

James: Please see my inline responses.

Thx.

-roger marshall.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Roger Marshall; Robert Sparks; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt
>
> Roger,
>
> I don't agree with your interpretation of those definitions.
> The acquisition is the LCP, be it HELD, DHCP, LLDP-MED, this
> is not determination.
We're in whole-hearted agreement here.

>
> Wiremap correlations may be things like DHCP-Relay, switch port etc.
> This is determination. How information was derived and put
> into my wiremap database is a level of indirection that is
> not addressed by the Method value.
Agree - I think, except which 'Method' value are you pointing to,
determination method or configuration method (I assume you meant
determination method).

>
> If I use parameters such a timing advance etc and then
> compute a location using a specific method, such as UTDOA for
> example, then that should be the method.
Agree that it should be the determination 'method', but not the
configuration 'method' - (configuration is what rules 3 & 5 are aiming
at).

>
> I don't believe that the rules state anything to contrary on
> this. What you are asking for is for the method to reflect
> how the data in the database was calculated or arrived out,
> that is not in my view what the method parameter is trying to provide.
I'm not advocating that the determination method be reflected in either
rule 3 or 5, and therefore the terms 'determined, determination' should
not appear in the rules either. Check the text yourself, why would
these 'det' terms be used in rules 3 & 5?

>
> Cheers
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roger Marshall [mailto:RMarshall@telecomsys.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 22 June 2007 8:44 AM
> > To: Winterbottom, James; Robert Sparks; geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC:
> draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt
> >
> > James:
> > I still don't understand. Let me try again, by defining terms.
> >
> > -- Location Determination: method by which a location is
> 'calculated'
> or
> > 'given'. This could be, for example something like trilateration
> (often
> > referred to as triangulation), or manually input (provisioned),
> > respectively.
> >
> > This definition is similar, but not exactly the same as what you've
> > stated in another of your drafts,
> >
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thomson-geopriv-hel
> d-capabili
> > ties-01.txt), since your definition doesn't take into account manual
> > inputs:
> >
> > Location Determination: The process of finding the location of a
> > Device, either by calculation or correlation. The many-varied
> > processes for location determination are outside the scope of
> this
> > document.
> >
> > -- Location Configuration: method by which a location is 'acquired'
> into
> > an end device or middlebox, for subsequent use in a location-based
> > operation (e.g., LoST routing).
> >
> > My following assertions are based on the above defns.
> >
> > In the pidf-lo-profile draft, rules 3 & 5 text talk about
> determination,
> > not configuration. From prior email, it sounds like the
> intent of 3 &
> 5
> > is for configuration, not determination. If so, let's change the
> term.
> >
> > My original point around rule 5 was that, if you don't
> change the term
> > from determination to configuration, then rule 5 cannot
> always work -
> > since a lat/lon produced via trilateration and a bldg.
> floor produced
> by
> > extrapolation are NOT the same (determination) method -
> thus violating
> > the rule.
> >
> > My point to rule 3, was that the justification text should
> likewise be
> > changed to 'configured' instead of 'determined' for all the same
> > reasons.
> >
> > -roger marshall.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:56 PM
> > > To: Roger Marshall; Robert Sparks; geopriv@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC:
> draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt
> > >
> > > Hi Roger,
> > >
> > > One quick further comment below.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the clarification. It's now apparent (to me)
> > > that the text
> > > > should be referring to 'configuration' or 'acquisition',
> > > rather than
> > > > 'determination'. Location determination, I hope you'd
> agree, is
> > > > provided in conjunction w/methods as listed in the IANA
> > > registry, not
> > > > via DHCP or HELD, etc.
> > > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/method-tokens).
> > > > This same need for the right term applies to my 'C5' as well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [AJW] Method technically in this case is probably
> wiremap, that is,
> > > we used some kind of circuit or tother information that
> enabled us
> > > to determine the location we have pre-stored in a
> database. The DHCP
> > > method as defined is a special case of wiremap, it says that the
> > > information provided came from DHCP relay information,
> not that DHCP
> > > was used at the acquisition protocol, at least that is my take on
> > > it.
> > >
> > > I don't think that we need to convey information relating
> to how we
> > > determined the location that we have in our wiremap database.
> > >
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or
> > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible
> for
> > delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review,
> forwarding,
> > dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any
> > attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in
> > error, please so notify the sender immediately, and delete
> it and all
> > attachments from your computer and network.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------
> 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
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:32:13 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 21 2007 - 19:32:28 EDT