RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>
Date: Tue Jul 24 2007 - 14:42:29 EDT

Which is not just a US problem? The MSAG encoding problem or the fact that a jurisdictional encoding of a civic may different than a postal encoding? If it's the latter, and it's a global issue, then I think we should consider support for both forms. If it's the MSAG problem then, apparently, it's moot. Though I haven't seen the MSAG concept anywhere else before. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Marc Berryman [mailto:MBerryman@911.org] Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 4:23 AM To: Brian Rosen; Dawson, Martin; Winterbottom, James; Richard Barnes Cc: Geopriv; Marc Linsner Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt I agree with Brian, and just FYI, it is not ONLY a US problem, it happens around the world. Marc B -----Original Message----- From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:48 PM To: 'Dawson, Martin'; 'Winterbottom, James'; 'Richard Barnes' Cc: 'Geopriv'; 'Marc Linsner' Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt This is NOT the U.S. MSAG. You definitely cannot encode MSAG as jurisdictional and have the fields be the same as postal. I think we WILL store MSAG in a database along side the jurisdictional, but not the LoST database. We need MSAG for backwards compatibility to non upgraded systems. That's an internal, U.S. only issue, and not relevant to this discussion. The only problem I know of is a U.S. problem, and it comes from the postal authorities not following the addressing authority's decisions. It shouldn't happen, but it does. It is presently the case that the PSAP authorities don't necessarily follow the addressing authority (which is why we can't encode MSAG in a PIDF) but we're going to fix that going forward. The i3 standards use the address authority data, and fields are populated as the PIDF standard says they are. As I said, I'm not sure we should cater to this in HELD. We don't any where else. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:25 PM > To: Winterbottom, James; Brian Rosen; Richard Barnes > Cc: Geopriv; Marc Linsner > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > It is the case that the "jurisdictional" form does not always have the > same content as the "postal" form. > > The most (perhaps only?) significant example of this is the good old > USofA where the MSAG civic address is not the same as the postal civic > address. > > I recall that during the i2 definition days, Brian, you were advocating > (correct me if I'm wrong) that the LIS provide the postal form and that > somewhere in the processing - probably the ERDB - it got converted via > some rules into the MSAG form. This converted form was then presented to > the PSAP via E2. I don't know if this ever got properly defined or > whether it's been punted to i2.5. > > It's certainly the case that a LIS, being a local service, is in a > position to provide a validated MSAG civic form directly to the device. > However, if it is going to do this then the question arises as to how > the device can specify and distinguish the two forms received from the > LIS. > > If this is purely a US issue, then perhaps it is better hidden in the US > emergency infrastructure. For i3/ECRIT where location is delivered > directly, and not via the VPC as in i2, this presumably places the onus > on the recipient PSAP to make the conversion before operator > presentation. If this is the case then we can drop the distinction > between the two forms in the HELD interface definition. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 3:13 AM > To: Brian Rosen; Richard Barnes > Cc: Geopriv; Marc Linsner > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > If we can be 100% sure that ALL applications will work in all cases when > we don't make the distinction then remove it. > > The moment that there is a clash between any two values being different > for the same tag in any environment then the distinction is required. > > I am certainly not prepared to make that assumption, and I don't think > that it overly complicates things to allow the distinction. > > Cheers > James > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 2:22 AM > > To: 'Richard Barnes' > > Cc: 'Marc Linsner'; Winterbottom, James; 'Geopriv' > > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] > draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > > > Technically, yes. > > The construction of the two forms of address is well understood. The > > CONTENTS of some of the tags may be different between the two forms. > > > > I'm still not sure it is worth it. > > > > Brian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:16 PM > > > To: Brian Rosen > > > Cc: 'Marc Linsner'; 'Winterbottom, James'; 'Geopriv' > > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] > draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > > > > > To ask a more basic question, are there documented definitions for > > > "postal location" and "jurisdictional location"? Is this a > technically > > > meaningful distinction that a server can reliably make? > > > --RB > > > > > > > > > Brian Rosen wrote: > > > > There is a pretty minor, but none-the-less real problem this > solves. > > > > In theory, the postal authorities and the municipal authorities > agree > > on > > > the > > > > way a street name is constructed. However, there are cases where > they > > > > don't. Sometimes the municipality insists the road is called > North > > Main > > > St, > > > > but the postal authorities insist it's Main Street North. > > > > > > > > This occurs rarely, but it occurs. In the U.S., there is > nominally an > > > > "addressing authority" which should define what both postal and > > > municipal > > > > authorities accept. In practice, it doesn't work out that way > always. > > > > > > > > In 99.999% of the cases, what Marc says is true: there are tags > for > > > postal > > > > community name and municipal community name, as well as tags for > the > > > > direction prefix and direction post fix, and a single PIDF can > have > > all > > > of > > > > them and thus the recipient can construct a postal or a > jurisdictional > > > from > > > > them. > > > > > > > > I'm not really sure we need to solve this problem. > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:02 PM > > > >> To: 'Winterbottom, James'; 'Geopriv' > > > >> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery- > > 01.txt > > > >> > > > >> James, > > > >> > > > >> 1) I find no documented requirements, hence my question. > > > >> > > > >> 2) I believe that all the tags associated with the 2 location > types > > are > > > >> already defined and don't overlap within the LO. > > > >> > > > >> 3) Assuming #2 is correct, if the target is smart enough to ask, > it's > > > >> smart > > > >> enough to pull the desired tags from the LO and ignore the > irrelevant > > > >> tags. > > > >> > > > >> -Marc- > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com] > > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:57 AM > > > >>> To: Marc Linsner; Geopriv > > > >>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] > > > >>> draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > > >>> > > > >>> Marc, > > > >>> > > > >>> Do you agree that there is a difference between these two > > > >>> types in some areas? > > > >>> > > > >>> Assuming that you do, then it is perfectly reasonable for a > > > >>> Target to request the type that it wants. > > > >>> > > > >>> Cheers > > > >>> James > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] > > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 1:53 AM > > > >>>> To: 'Geopriv' > > > >>>> Subject: [Geopriv] > draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > > >>>> > > > >>>> What are the requirements behind locationType > > > >>> jurisdictionalCivic: and > > > >>>> postalCivic:?? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -Marc- > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> Geopriv mailing list > > > >>>> Geopriv@ietf.org > > > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>> ---------------------------------- > > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Geopriv mailing list > > > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------ > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- > ---------------------- > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:42:29 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 24 2007 - 14:42:42 EDT