[Geopriv] RFC 3825 -- Implementation / Deployment Feedback.

From: Hannes Tschofenig ^lt;Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Date: Mon Nov 26 2007 - 15:00:45 EST

Hi Henning,

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>> So, what would you do in the context of the RFC 3825 debate?
>> Here are the options:
>> * Leave RFC 3825 as is
>> * Add uncertainty as described in draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-01.txt
>> * Only describe point locations (for example, by omitting the
>> 'resolution' fields).
>> * Add a new shape that is able to describe a circle.
> I think there are two objectives:
> - keep it simple, as anything complicated will likely be either
> ignored or mis-configured
> - keep it honest, i.e., don't pretend to convey knowledge (such as
> confidence) that generally doesn't exist in real-world deployments
> - keep it conservative, i.e., it's better to have a slightly larger
> coverage area rather than having users be actually located outside the
> claimed area.
Good design goals.

> I don't think circles are significantly better than the spheroid
> rectangles that are essentially in 3825 today.
> I suspect that from an implementation and operational perspective, the
> most useful thing would be a table that tells a sys admin what value
> to configure for a typical outdoor AP at various common longitudes and
> latitudes. Simply assuming that an unamplified AP has, say, 300 ft
> coverage is probably as good as anything we can come up with.
> Specialized extremely well-maintained and surveyed systems may be able
> to come up with something more precise, but they can figure out the
> bit math themselves since they have more than an A+ technician on
> staff. It is very unlikely that your local Starbucks or Bryant Park
> (free WiFi in NYC) will pay for such a survey.
Sounds good to me.

> If I were to redo 3825, I would have suggested a simple circle
> diameter, maybe rounded to the nearest power of 2 meters, as that's
> easy to understand, but that's water under the bridge.
That's much simpler to understand.

Given that RFC 3825 is already out there for some time I wonder whether
there is some deployment and implementation experience. The format was
re-used by the IEEE and the document is being referenced by a couple of
other SDOs. Why don't we solicit feedback?


> Henning
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:00:45 +0100

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 26 2007 - 15:00:55 EST