RE: [Geopriv] ResponseTime

From: Stuard, Doug ^lt;Doug.Stuard@andrew.com>
Date: Tue Aug 28 2007 - 16:25:12 EDT

ESIF (based on PSAP input) has recommended that confidence values NOT be displayed for this reason, as well as the fact that, even if consistent, the concept would only add confusion to call takers. As it stands today, a call taker may know that, in general, 200 meter uncertainty from wireless carrier A is equivalent to 150 meter uncertainty from wireless carrier B. If there were a common underlying confidence value (note: the value itself would still not be displayed), then such "rules of thumb" would be unnecessary, and uncertainly in all cases would have a common basis. Doug From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 4:01 PM To: 'Roger Marshall'; Stuard, Doug; peter_blatherwick@mitel.com; Winterbottom, James Cc: 'GEOPRIV'; Dawson, Martin Subject: RE: [Geopriv] ResponseTime Okay, but what are you proposing? Having a standardized value is so much more useful than the absolute number. Generally, every user I ever talked to was unable to use confidence unless all sources gave them the same confidence. If they varied, then they were forced to ignore it; nothing they could think of doing: displaying, calculating, dispatching, routing... could change based on the value of confidence. If you have the same value, then at least you can compare two locations from different sources and they mean the same thing. You still can't use confidence for displaying, calculating, dispatching or routing. ________________________________ From: Roger Marshall [mailto:RMarshall@telecomsys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:53 PM To: Brian Rosen; Stuard, Doug; peter_blatherwick@mitel.com; Winterbottom, James Cc: GEOPRIV; Dawson, Martin Subject: RE: [Geopriv] ResponseTime This gets to the nagging problem of how good is 'good enough'? Determining elements can certainly provide position, based on input of 67% confidence, but they can also do better. If you're willing to wait a few more seconds, they can churn out a more accurate result based on a 90 or 95% input value. In fact, maybe they'll have to use 95% to get the level of precision that some regulatory agency will ask for someday. By providing confidence value as an input to these mechanisms, you can achieve location hiding (to some degree) as well. -roger marshall. ________________________________ From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:45 PM To: 'Stuard, Doug'; peter_blatherwick@mitel.com; 'Winterbottom, James' Cc: 'GEOPRIV'; 'Dawson, Martin' Subject: RE: [Geopriv] ResponseTime James pointed out to be that PIDF-LO profile actually does say use 67%. While I'd much prefer 90 or 95%, a single standardized value beats any set of values hands down. 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 Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:25:12 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 28 2007 - 16:27:03 EDT