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

From: jerome.grenier@bell.ca
Date: Wed Aug 08 2007 - 13:52:26 EDT

I can't speak for all Canadian emergency service providers, but as for Bell Canada, which is the country's largest emergency service provider (E9-1-1), using only the postal addressing system (as the sole civic format) to route and help dispatch emergency VoIP calls would actually be harmful.

As pointed out earlier by Guy, it is not rare to find occurrences of municipalities that have much richer address information than the post office has about a particular region (at least for the territory that Bell Canada covers). The most cited example being a centralized mailbox in a rural region, where the municipality locally has a street system. Relying only on postal information at this point for the E9-1-1 service would therefore result in a decrease in the quality of service (coarse information) for some regions.

Bell Canada actually has a department dedicated to maintaining a SAG that captures the finer details of local jurisdictions' addressing information, which involves close collaboration with municipalities. This SAG is used throughout Bell Canada so that our subscribers' service address is valid for E9-1-1 from the very start.

Also worth noting is that the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission) has ruled that user-input location information would not be acceptable for E9-1-1 VoIP calls in Canada. Therefore, the use of postal addresses as a friendlier format for end users doesn't really apply here, as they don't have to act on that information (for the E9-1-1 service).

I have no idea how the Canadian post office and municipalities actually synchronize their information, but from a purely conceptual perspective, I would think that they don't necessarily have to match as mail delivery is only one application that leverages an addressing system. In my mind, locating people (or their devices actually) to deliver effective E9-1-1 can certainly require a different, although similar, addressing system. The post office doesn't need to know more than the location of a mailbox for its mail delivery service to work, whereas E9-1-1 (or some other service) sometimes needs more precision if available.

That being said, Canada shouldn't limit itself to jurisdictional civic addresses, just as it shouldn't limit itself to the E9-1-1 application, among all the possible location-consuming applications. Other civic address formats, such as the obvious postal format, should also be available (I'm not suggesting that I know other formats though). Canadian LIS operators should therefore be able to deliver jurisdictional civic locations so that they can be used for E9-1-1, as well as postal civic locations for a whole bunch of other services.

If HELD no longer allows this distinction to be made when requesting a civic location, then Canadian LIS will have to send both formats (if they wish to communicate the postal form as well). Then, either the target sends only the jurisdictional address when issuing a 9-1-1 VoIP call, or it sends both. In any case, someone will need to distinguish a postal from a jurisdictional address (either the target or the emergency service provider). I don't think these formats should be using a different set of XML tags (at least, that's not required for Canada) but a "civicAddr"-level attribute might be sufficient. Something similar to the "srsName" attribute for geodetic location information might very well allow us to make that distinction. I see it as there are different (yet maybe similar) civic address reference systems, just as there are different (yet maybe similar) coordinate reference systems.

I'm open to other solutions, but allowing only postal civic addresses, as it stands right now, would imply a lower quality of the E9-1-1 service.

Jérôme

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
Envoyé : 28 juillet 2007 10:28
À : Caron, Guy (A162859); mlinsner@cisco.com
Cc : geopriv@ietf.org
Objet : RE: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for"jurisdictional"vs"postal locations"? wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

You are mischaracterizing i2, and using a typo to do so.

The i2 paradigm is that emergency only forms of address are stored in the
"ERDB" and a postal/jurisdictional address is delivered by the LIS. An
address in the LIS must be validated against the VDB, which is derived from
postal and MSAG records. The arrangement of the data is such that a valid
postal address in the VDB corresponds to a valid postal address in the ERDB,
which contains an MSAG valid address. To get an MSAG valid address you look
up the postal/jurisdictional address in the ERDB and use the MSAG fields.
The MSAG address is never stored in the LIS, or seen in a PIDF, unless MSAG
exactly equals postal/jurisdictional.

Marc and I have been intimately associated with the i2 data scheme, and I
assure you that the jurisdictional address is precisely the address assigned
by the local addressing authority and not necessarily what is in the MSAG.
Many communities have strived to make them the same, but if MSAG is
different from what the local address authority says, the value in the LIS
is the latter. The postal should (by the rules I have cited) be the same,
modulo the postal community name.

Is it the case that the post office in Canada will not accept the actual
jurisdictional address, or is it like the U.S., where both the
jurisdictional address is acceptable and an alias is also acceptable?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: g.caron@bell.ca [mailto:g.caron@bell.ca]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 6:50 PM
> To: mlinsner@cisco.com
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
>
> Thanks Marc for your response.
>
> I've used the PO box thing as an example. In those places, the habitants
> may not even be aware of an address attached to their dwelling. From a
> postal point of view, they have a PO box. In commercial maps, no address
> either. But I can provide other examples: City amalgamations where, from a
> postal point of view you have to use the new name but from an emergency
> point of view, you need to use the old names. It happen quite often and
> this situation can last for quite a while (read years).
>
> For NENA i2, it states pretty clearly that both forms can be used. Here is
> one statement taken from the spec:
> Section 4.7.2 Perform validation : "The request could contain either
> postal or jurisdictional addresses but the response will return a postal
> address and may return a jurisdictional address."
>
> And just to be sure we're on the same page, here is NENA's definition of a
> jurisdictional address taken from i2 (footnote #3): "An MSAG valid address
> for the physical location of a subscriber access line, which has been
> assigned by the jurisdiction's local addressing authority; i.e., planning
> department, zoning department, etc. and is used for 9-1-1 emergency
> dispatching purposes.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy Caron
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> Date: ven. 2007-07-27 18:28
> À: Caron, Guy (A162859)
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Objet : 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
>
>
>
> Guy,
>
> In-line...
> >
> > I'm not asking for a specific "emergency" designation. I'm
> > perfectly fine with a "jurisdictional" designation of the
> > civic form for use in an emergency context as it is the form
> > that we, as emergency services providers, are getting from
> > the municipalities for emergency use.
> >
> > I need this characterization because:
> >
> > 1) In some circumstances, the Jurisdictional address is not
> > the same as postal. For example, in some rural areas only PO
> > boxes at a central post office are use. In order to provide
> > emergency services, the local authorities create an
> > addressing scheme (jurisdictional) that they supplied to the
> > emergency services provider. The addressing scheme is not
> > always adopted (for reasons I don't know so please don't ask)
> > by Canada post.
>
> I would not expect the LO to be populated with PO box information. House
> number, street name, etc. is what is expected. The GeoPriv common usage
> for
> 'postal' means the address used for delivery to a location, not a PO box.
>
> >
> > 2) NENA i2 specifically support both forms (Postal and
> > Jurisdictional) to be used and conveyed for consumption into
> > the i2 domain. Not supporting this in the IETF mechanisms
> > would deprecate the functionality of i2 on which, Canada is
> > relying upon.
>
> The input to NENA i2 (from consumer to VPC) is the address known by the
> consumer, not the MSAG address. I2 supports conversion between the two,
> but
> does not carry both on the VoIP side of the gateway.
>
> -Marc-
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:52:26 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 08 2007 - 13:54:19 EDT