Brian
On 10/20/09 7:55 PM, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> Thanks for the update. It looks like you got all the comments, bar this one:
>
>>> Section 3.4: It's unclear what the effect of uncertainty is on
>>> this. An implementation is asked to make a Boolean decision,
>>> but not given the necessary tools to ensure that the decision
>>> it makes is the one that is expected.
>
> This is one of the issues I thought worth looking at. Is it necessary for
> interoperability that we define how a notifier/PA determines that a location
> containing uncertainty is inside or outside a particular region.
>
> I'd like to see a simple statement to the effect:
>
> If the Target was previously outside the region, the notifier sends a
> notification when the Target's location is within the region with at least 50%
> confidence. Similarly, when a Target starts within the region, a notification
> is sent when the Target's location moves outside the region with at least 50%
> confidence.
>
> I'll let you decide if you want to include this extra explanatory information:
>
> Note that having 50% confidence that the Target is inside the area does not
> correspond to 50% outside. Confidence that the location is within the region,
> plus confidence that the location is outside the region cannot be 100%. The
> total confidence depends on the confidence in the original location, which is
> always less than 100% (95% is recommended in [RFC5491]). The benefit of this
> is that notifications are naturally limited: small movements at the borders of
> the region do not trigger notifications.
>
> c.f.
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-geopriv-uncertainty-03#section-4.3>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>> [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2009 3:50 AM
>> To: Thomson, Martin; Alissa Cooper; GEOPRIV
>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I believe I have addressed your comments and I have also added some
>> further text to constraint the functionality in the document further to
>> avoid interoperability problems.
>>
>> Here is the latest version that I plan to submit:
>> http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/Filters/draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-
>> filters
>> -07.txt
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Thomson, Martin
>>> Sent: 13 October, 2009 06:01
>>> To: Alissa Cooper; GEOPRIV
>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this document is ready for publication.
>>>
>>> I have a few very minor issues, and a bunch of nits. None of
>>> these are so important that they need to be fixed immediately.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that Rohan's affiliation has changed. Last time I
>>> saw him it certainly wasn't Plantronics.
>>>
>>> Title: The "reporting" aspect was long ago removed. I'd
>>> propose simply:
>>> Filtering Location Notifications in Presence No need to
>>> mention PIDF-LO. There might be a need to mention SIP, in
>>> which case it becomes
>>> Filtering Location Notifications in Session Initiation
>>> Protocol (SIP) Presence
>>>
>>> Section 1, OLD:
>>> RFC 3265 can be used with so-called 'filters'...
>>> NEW:
>>> SIP events [RFC3265] can be used with filters...
>>>
>>> Q: what is "so-called" about them? Is the term not defined in
>>> RFC 4660? This phrase has negative connotations. (I suspect
>>> that this is symptomatic of Rohan's views on the filtering
>>> docs. Not undeserved, but also unnecessary.)
>>>
>>> Section 1: Is it worth stating in the introduction that this
>>> document mixes new mechanisms with documentation of existing
>>> mechanisms?
>>>
>>> Section 1: wayward apostrophe: s/presence event
>>> package'/presence event package/
>>>
>>> Section 3.*: Suggest a better namespace prefix to use in
>>> examples might be "lf:" rather than the generic "ext:".
>>>
>>> Section 3.4: It's unclear what the effect of uncertainty is on
>>> this. An implementation is asked to make a Boolean decision,
>>> but not given the necessary tools to ensure that the decision
>>> it makes is the one that is expected.
>>>
>>> Section 3.5:
>>> For the example above, if the 'exact' attribute was "true", then
>> the
>>> only possible response is either a "civic" location or an error
>>> message.
>>> What does it mean to provide an "error message" in the context
>>> of being unable to provide the requested location type? In
>>> this case, I'd suggest:
>>> s/or an error message./or no location information./
>>>
>>> Section 3.6: (This is recent text, so this is actually the
>>> first time that I've read it.) No specific comment here
>>> (aside from a wayward period.). However, the example does
>>> look a little like a wall of text. I can see several
>>> paragraphs there. Perhaps if this "example" was split into a
>>> sub-section, there wouldn't be a tendency to try to create the
>>> ultimate paragraph.
>>>
>>> Section 5: I don't think that the third bullet is necessarily
>>> true. This document doesn't really build in PIDF-LO, but it
>>> does depend on its format. If, in that fact, there are
>>> security considerations, I'm not aware of them.
>>>
>>> Section 5: Is it worth noting that there are no policies that
>>> dictate what filters may be used? I tend to object to live
>>> tracking as a general rule, but am offered no means to control
>>> this behaviour by watchers (I can tell them not to get
>>> location, even black out certain areas, but not limit rates).
>>> Are we satisfied that this document leans on the "local
>>> policy" crutch in this area?
>>>
>>> --Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2009 2:58 AM
>>>> To: GEOPRIV
>>>> Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>>>>
>>>> This is a GEOPRIV Working Group Last Call for comments on
>>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06)
>>>>
>>>> Please send your comments no later than Monday, November 2, 2009.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
