Subject: [Geopriv] static location on a mobile device

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 08:46:11 -0400

[  This is being cross-posted to both GEOPRIV and ECRIT.  The use case 
is for emergency services but it deals with location.  ]

Despite our best efforts, I believe in less than ideal situations (and 
there will be many) we may end up with mobile devices configured with 
static locations.  Here is the scenario as the world works today in some 
situations:

   A user signs up for voip service.  In the process of getting voip 
service, their location is determined (either by asking the user or some 
database lookup).  This location is based on the endpoint of the users 
broadband connection.
   Now, the user takes the device associated with that location to his 
friends house.  If a call is placed, the location conveyed will be 
different than the location of the actual device.

This is simply a fact of life.  It will happen.  I was thinking that it 
would be a good thing if the location could be conveyed to the PSAP with 
the following note, "This location has been configured statically, but 
the device may have been moved."  Naturally, an actual english message 
is not the best thing... a well-known tag would work better the world over.

Before I jump into the solution space, I was wondering what people 
thought of the idea.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Marc Linsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:09:49 -0400

Obviously the use case is valid.

Are you suggesting that the 'Manual' pidf-lo method is not sufficient to
cover this use case?

-Marc-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Geopriv] static location on a mobile device
> 
> [  This is being cross-posted to both GEOPRIV and ECRIT.  The 
> use case is for emergency services but it deals with location.  ]
> 
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:10:17 -0400

> Are you suggesting that the 'Manual' pidf-lo method is not sufficient to

That doesn't necessarily give the whole story.  My current tower PC 
workstation has a UA on it and can be manually configured and is 
unlikely to be moved.  However, those handy dandy wifi phones coming out 
will almost certainly roam from one location to another.

I'm thinking that perhaps when the registration of the device is given, 
there is also a mobility capability registered with it.  So the manual 
configuration of location in the wifi phones says "this is a mobile 
device" and my tower PC says "this is an immobile device".

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:42:51 -0500

At 08:46 AM 4/6/2006 -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
>[  This is being cross-posted to both GEOPRIV and ECRIT.  The use case is 
>for emergency services but it deals with location.  ]
>
>

One very large VoIP provider asks the customer at service sign-up to enter 
a street address of where they want any 911 call to be routed "as if they 
were at that location".  This is not a dynamic mapping, and can be 
anywhere, even a bad address - since there is no verification process.

I literally witnessed my friend sign up for this service at CES this past 
January. His intent is to use this new phone at his home and office (in two 
different cities in California).  I told him it wouldn't be long before he 
forgets which address he entered, and he asked the rep for the company who 
replied "just enter whichever one you prefer".

hmmmm

>This is simply a fact of life.  It will happen.

"...is..."

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:00:05 -0400

We call this "self reported location".  Right now, it's the only thing we
have.  We are trying to specify, and then deploy "automatic location
determination" which doesn't ask the user anything and works automatically.
Self reported location doesn't work.

We know that.

We know there will be corner cases in every environment where automatic
location fails.  Probably, most vendors will provide some kind of an escape
mechanism, if only to avoid liability issues ("I TOLD them I had run 10000'
of wire and my phone was not at 123 Main, but at 136 Main, but they didn't
do anything and my son choked and the ambulance went to the wrong
location").  We need a way for the carrier to mark that as being self
reported so that the PSAP knows what has happened and the liability issues
are kept straight.

So, SOME form of self reported location will be needed, but for 99.9999% of
the cases, it won't be used.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:43 PM
To: Andrew Newton; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Ecrit] Re: [Geopriv] static location on a mobile device

hmmmm

"...is..."

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:53:31 -0500

This gets kinda tricky beacuse this is not a validated location (because 
the user may not be there), even though there is a location that can be 
validated at this address.  I doubt too many will be willing to allow a 
PIDF-LO to be marked in a way that indicates this.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:16:09 -0700

At 8:46 AM -0400 4/6/06, Andrew Newton wrote:
>Despite our best efforts, I believe in less than ideal situations (and there will be many) we may end up with mobile devices configured with static locations.  Here is the scenario as the world works today in some situations:
>
>  A user signs up for voip service.  In the process of getting voip service, their location is determined (either by asking the user or some database lookup).  This location is based on the endpoint of the users broadband connection.
>  Now, the user takes the device associated with that location to his friends house.  If a call is placed, the location conveyed will be different than the location of the actual device.

Not to be pedantic, but I think it is common to use the term "nomadic" rather than "mobile" for use cases like this.  This is because the use case requires the system
to handle service from multiple, discrete locations, but does not require it to
handle the topologies of MobileIP or the hand-off problems.

I agree that this will likely happen; I'm not sure I would call these static locations
(since they could be presumably be changed manually in the same way the were originally entered or the database updated), but it's clear that the need for update
is nowhere being triggered or acted upon.

Are you thinking of a message to this effect that is not part of the pidf-lo?  Or a
method carried within the pidf-lo?
				regards,
					Ted

>This is simply a fact of life.  It will happen.  I was thinking that it would be a good thing if the location could be conveyed to the PSAP with the following note, "This location has been configured statically, but the device may have been moved."  Naturally, an actual english message is not the best thing... a well-known tag would work better the world over.
>
>Before I jump into the solution space, I was wondering what people thought of the idea.
>
>-andy
>
>
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:25:34 -0400

> handle the topologies of MobileIP or the hand-off problems.

"Nomadic" is fine by me.

> is nowhere being triggered or acted upon.

There are likely two use cases:
1) The UA is configured locally (such as a web page on one of the handy 
Cisco/Linksys thingys).
2) The VSP inserts location into the call flow because that is the 
location the customer gave them (either at account setup time or during 
account maintenance).  Obviously, the VSP can be smart enough not to 
insert location if one already exists, but that is another matter.

I doubt many people will remember to manually update location, either on 
the UA or at the VSP, every time they take it out for a walk.  This will 
be especially true of those nifty wifi handsets.

> method carried within the pidf-lo?

I don't know.  I'd rather get the scenario nailed down and then figure 
out where to put the info.

-andy

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:40:47 -0700

At 3:25 PM -0400 4/6/06, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
>I doubt many people will remember to manually update location, either on the UA or at the VSP, every time they take it out for a walk.  This will be especially true of those nifty wifi handsets.

Agreed that people will likely not remember.  The wifi sets have a better shot at DHCP location for carrier-owned WiFi (e.g. Starbuck's wifi locations), but probably not
for the case where they have simply gone to a neighbor's house.
>I don't know.  I'd rather get the scenario nailed down and then figure out where to put the info.

Let me re-phrase this, then.  Do you think it will ever be important to say to
a PSAP "I picked you based on a location that might be wrong"?  If not,
I think the other cases covering "This location might be wrong" can always
go with the location, which simplifies things a good bit.
				regards,
					Ted

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:29:46 -0400

Ted Hardie wrote:
> a PSAP "I picked you based on a location that might be wrong"?  

As you would hear from one Alabaman gentlemen to another eying a pretty 
Georgia girl, "You dance with the one that brung ya."  Once you are 
communicating with the PSAP, they'll let you know what you should do next.

> If not,

I was think more along these lines.

-andy

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:44:43 -0700

At 12:10 PM -0400 4/6/06, Andrew Newton wrote:

>  I'm thinking that perhaps when the registration of the device is 
> given, there is also a mobility capability registered with it.  So 
> the manual configuration of location in the wifi phones says "this 
> is a mobile device" and my tower PC says "this is an immobile 
> device".

How does the device know if it is mobile or not?  I'm just wondering 
if a mobile device incorrectly marked as 'immobile' would be worse 
than not having the label.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
Implementation is the sincerest form of flattery.