RE: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for "jurisdictional" vs "postal locations"? was RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Jul 26 2007 - 09:26:45 EDT

Here's the response from the Australian jurisdiction - it doesn't have a separate jurisdictional representation... Cheers, Martin Martin, Hi. An update after talking with Kandiah at Telstra this afternoon: Telstra records two addresses for a service - a billing address (for correspondence) and a "service detail address". For a fixed line service at a residence, the service detail address is the civic address i.e. the physical location of the property that has the service / terminates the wire. ECLIPS records the service detail address. ECLIPS does not record the billing address. [For a wireless/mobile service obviously there are different arrangements for obtaining the handset/user location e.g. cell/tower site, A-GPS, etc. The ECLIPS database has an "alternate address flag" for mobile and some other services that is used to prompt the emergency operator to verify the address.] RE: "As I understand it, the ECLIPS database that the Australian emergency call centres use is based on the subscriber information provided by the operators." Correct. RE: "The issue is whether it can always be assumed that the postal type civic address that most applications are interested in would be the same as the address information used for emergency services." Correct. ECLIPS records a civic address that, for fixed services, matches the location of the service. RE: "As such, I would assume that it is the same as the postal address that subscribers provide when they sign up for service." May need clarification here. A "postal address" can be a billing address, which may or may not be the same as the "service detail address". I assume by "postal address" you mean the physical address (as opposed to a geodetic location) and not the address for correspondence. RE: emergency vs pizza delivery application: One would still want the ambulance ("I'm dying") or pizza delivery vehicle ("I'm dying of hunger") to arrive at the same place :-) Trust this helps. James Duck Project Manager Communications Alliance Ltd ________________________________ From: James Duck Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2007 9:47 AM To: 'Dawson, Martin' Subject: RE: Civic addresses used for emergency services Martin, Hi. Yes, I don't know the precise answer but I have forwarded your query to a contact within Telstra on emergency call handling. I expect the answer will be along the lines of "yes, most of the time, but there may be a few exceptions". I'll forward what the ECLIPS experts come back with. James Duck Project Manager Communications Alliance Ltd ________________________________ From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com] Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2007 3:25 AM To: James Duck Subject: Civic addresses used for emergency services Hi James, You may not be the right person to ask, but I'm not sure who would know. At the least, you may know who I should ask. There's an issue being discussed in Geopriv (IETF working group) at the moment that affects how we structure some HELD semantics and, possibly, the PIDF-LO structure definition. The question is to do with when a client asks for location as a civic (street) address. The issue is whether it can always be assumed that the postal type civic address that most applications are interested in would be the same as the address information used for emergency services. As I understand it, the ECLIPS database that the Australian emergency call centres use is based on the subscriber information provided by the operators. As such, I would assume that it is the same as the postal address that subscribers provide when they sign up for service. Can you confirm this is the case? A simple example would be if the community (suburb, for example) name would be different for an emergency application than it is for, say, a pizza delivery application. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 6:50 AM To: Dawson, Martin; 'Marc Linsner' Cc: 'Geopriv' Subject: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for "jurisdictional" vs "postal locations"? was RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt I'd like to finish up this thread with a plea for the working group members to look into their own national situation and determine if this is a problem or not. If the VALUES for the tags in the PIDF (for example, the "A" tags) can be different for a postal address than for a jurisdictional address, would you please report that information to the work group? If you have no problem in your country, then no action is necessary. If you have a problem, please describe it. I think we will find that there is no problem. If we get no reports, I ask that the next version of the HELD document drop this feature. Note that we retain both the jurisdictional community name and the post office name. That differentiation is needed in many countries, but the PIDF you get from HELD would have both. Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 26 Jul 2007 08:26:45 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 26 2007 - 09:26:58 EDT