Subject: [Geopriv] Support for adoption of application layer mechanism for location sighting

From: "Abbott, Nadine B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:16:38 -0500

Allison Mankin
Randall Gellens
Andrew Newton
Geopriv WG
 
As the Geopriv WG meets this week to consider ongoing and future work
items,
I would like to support the adoption of a work item to specify an
application layer sighting protocol  for endpoints to acquire their
location information. 
 
Over the last year, the North American National Emergency Number
Association Location WG has been investigating the feasibility of
applying various available proposed mechanisms for providing location
information to support emergency calling in a residential/mass market
environment.  The broadband access providers actively participating in
this discussion represent a significant proportion of the broadband
access providers in North America.  The consensus has been that the DHCP
relay option methods currently supported in IETF can be used in some
cases, but are not universally applicable.  For this reason,
participants in the VLWG have made proposals in IETF to support an
application layer method for endpoints to acquire location information
that is separate from the access-specific method used to determine
location. We also hoped that such a mechanism might be generally
applicable for a variety of access architectures.
 
We appreciate the generosity of the Geopriv leadership and members in
providing comments and suggestions to improve these proposals, while we
waited for this need to be ready to be acknowledged as a WG item.  In
the NENA Location WG, we also have invested some time in understanding
the various proposals submitted into Geopriv. The participants in our WG
representing service providers that would be charged with provding
location to residential customers are satisfied that the I-D describing
the HTTP Enabled Location Delivery protocol would meet their need for an
application layer sighting protocol.  Therefore, I would like to
encourage you to consider this I-D as you discuss the inclusion of an
application layer protocl for location delivery as a WG item.
 
While IETF is refining the methods for delivering location to the
endpoint, the NENA Location WG has been considering complementary
mechanisms for location determination (outside of Geopriv WG scope) and
will be encouraging other standards bodies concerned with various access
technologies to ensure that the problem of location determination is
given timely consideration.
 
Again, thank you for all your efforts. We look forward to timely
resolution of a solution for this need.
 
Regards,
Nadine Abbott
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:47:22 -0600

At 09:16 AM 3/22/2006 -0500, Abbott, Nadine B wrote:

>Allison Mankin
>Randall Gellens
>Andrew Newton
>Geopriv WG
>
>"The broadband access providers actively participating in this discussion 
>represent a significant proportion of the broadband access providers in 
>North America.  "

I find this sentence interesting.  Can you tell me what percentage of 
broadband access providers do you consider to be "significant"?

90%...  80%... 70%... 60%...  50%...  40%... 30%... 20%... 10%... 5%?

>"The consensus has been that the DHCP relay option methods currently 
>supported in IETF can be used in some cases..."

I find this sentence interesting too.  Can you tell me what percentage of 
broadband access providers do you consider to be "some"?

5%... 10%... 20%... 30%... 40%... 50%... 60%... 70%... 80%... 90%?

That the sentence above is the adjacent sentence to the one previously 
commented on i snot unnoticed.

>, but are not universally applicable.  For this reason, participants in 
>the VLWG have made proposals in IETF to support an application layer 
>method for endpoints to acquire location information that is separate from 
>the access-specific method used to determine location. We also hoped that 
>such a mechanism might be generally applicable for a variety of access 
>architectures.

This remainder of the paragraph sounds like there is an issue with the IETF 
process of *this* SDO defining what it standardizes.

>
>In the NENA Location WG, we also have invested some time in understanding 
>the various proposals submitted into Geopriv.

This sentence can be remedied by working all the kinks within any given 
proposal in a technical manner, thus reaching consensus within a WG within 
the IETF.  Once this happens, that document is likely to progress.  It 
should not before this occurs though.

>The participants in our WG representing service providers that would be 
>charged with provding location to residential customers are satisfied that 
>the I-D describing the HTTP Enabled Location Delivery protocol would meet 
>their need for an application layer sighting protocol.  Therefore, I would 
>like to encourage you to consider this I-D as you discuss the inclusion of 
>an application layer protocl for location delivery as a WG item.

WG consensus must happen before any proposal becomes a WG item. Consensus 
within a proposal within a WG is necessary to that proposal to be 
considered for progression to any permanent status.  So far, this has not 
occurred.

/ James