document.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Thomson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Thomson@andrew.com]
>Sent: 21 October, 2009 02:56
>To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); Alissa Cooper; GEOPRIV
>Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>
>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-0
>3#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
