RE: [Geopriv] RE: Clarification on the posatl vs Jurisdictional debate

From: Marc Berryman ^lt;MBerryman@911.org>
Date: Fri Aug 10 2007 - 09:07:46 EDT

Brian is absolutely correct about shipping the MSAG around. There are
many issues with the current state on MSAG records, namely incorrect use
of fields, lack of fields needed to meet the needs of i2 and i3, total
lack of standardization, and other reasons including those mentioned by
Brian.

We have a chance to correct, or rather vastly improve, the location
information used to route a call to the proper PSAP, and to provide a
richer location to the PSAP and Emergency Services than is possible
today with the MSAG constraints.

While the i2 allow for an MSAG valid location to be delivered, on
certain types of calls, to the PSAP, I think we can do better in an i3
environment. At least for the reasons Brian and I have outlined, I for
one certainly hope so.

Thanks,
 Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:32 PM
To: 'Dawson, Martin'
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: Clarification on the posatl vs Jurisdictional
debate

An MSAG entry has a house number range. PIDF doesn't handle that.
There
are a number of fields in an MSAG that are not in a PIDF (like ESN).

The real problem is that MSAG often misuses fields and doesn't have what
the
contents of the fields are defined to be. We decided long ago that we
wouldn't try shipping MSAG around; we keep it locked up to do a
translation
just before we give it to a non-upgraded system. In i2, that would be
the
ERDB. In i3, it isn't really defined yet.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:33 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RE: Clarification on the posatl vs
Jurisdictional
> debate
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Are you planning to answer my question viz what the problem with
putting
> MSAG in the PIDF is? Is there some deficiency in the PIDF format or is
> it simply that the decision has been made not to do that?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
> Sent: Friday, 10 August 2007 7:24 AM
> To: Dawson, Martin; Winterbottom, James; 'Marc Linsner';
> jerome.grenier@bell.ca
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] RE: Clarification on the posatl vs Jurisdictional
> debate
>
> Yes, that is correct, and further, we don't encode MSAG in a PIDF.
>
> Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:00 PM
> > To: Winterbottom, James; Brian Rosen; Marc Linsner;
> jerome.grenier@bell.ca
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Clarification on the posatl vs Jurisdictional debate
> >
> > Perhaps more correctly - it *is* a problem in the US (because the
MSAG
> > is quite different) but the US has decided to go down a route of
real
> > time translation between forms.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Winterbottom, James
> > Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2007 10:06 AM
> > To: Dawson, Martin; Brian Rosen; Marc Linsner;
jerome.grenier@bell.ca
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: Clarification on the posatl vs Jurisdictional debate
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just clarify for all the people that have looked at this thread and
> > become lost in the tangled path.
> >
> > There are really 2 main issues that have become entwined.
> >
> > The first was, does any body need to be able to ask, using HELD, for
a
> > jurisdictional Civic or a Postal Civic. I am not sure that I have
seen
> > anybody come back and say yes they need this.
> >
> > The second thread, which is the one that has caused more traffic is
a
> > generic problem and relates directly to the civic location structure
> > itself. The argument being posed is that just by looking at a civic
> > location it is not always possible to tell what kind of address it
> > represents. Further to this, if it represents both postal and
> > jurisdictional addresses, which fields apply to which.
> >
> > This second problem applies regardless of whether HELD supports
> > requesting postal or jurisdictional civic addresses because things
> > receiving the location downstream need to be able to interpret it.
> >
> > From what I can see problem 2 becomes a real problem where one field
> in
> > the civic address complex has different values depending on whether
> the
> > location being expressed is describing the jurisdictional address or
> the
> > postal address. If the address elements are the same or orthogonal
> > between the address types then a problem does not arise.
> >
> > Jerome and Guy seem to suggest that this may be a problem in Canada.
> > Brian, Marc, and Marc seem to suggest that this is not a problem in
> the
> > States. It certainly isn't a problem in Australia.
> >
> > If you are reading this, and you are NOT from Canada, the United
> States
> > or Australia please indicate if this could be a problem for you.
> >
> > I think I have heard 3 proposed solutions:
> >
> > 1) Use a single format that allows conversion to Jurisdictional,
> Postal
> > or MSAG formats.
> >
> > 2) Have an attribute at the top of the civic form that says what
kind
> of
> > address is being represented.
> >
> > 3) Have an attribute per civic element that says what kind of
address
> > the element value is being used in.
> >
> > I don't think that we can really talk about solutions though until
we
> > have established whether nor not there is a serious problem or not.
> >
> > 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]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Received on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:07:46 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 10 2007 - 09:10:13 EDT