RE: [Geopriv] Offered Text into PIDF-LO ID

Andy,

Today, in some parts of the world, ECCs receive [much] more detailed
information about emergency calls than just the civil address and/or
geolocation. For example, they are typically able to identify a responsible
party that assist them if the location information provided turns out to be
faulty. Lookup of identification/contact information for that party today
is based on an identification number assigned by an emergency services
authority and provided with the location information to the ECC. (No, they
do not currently do lookups in whois based on the domain name in a URI.)

We discussed this issue at the National Emergency Number Association of
North America, and there was great concern about not having ANY
identification at all to get help in resolving problems with location
information in a timely way. This was considered to be essential in the
baseline definition. (We are also discussing what additional information
might be required for inclusion in possible future extensions, but that will
indeed require more thought and discussion.) However, we did have agreement
that at a bare minimum, a URI could be provided and defined in such a way as
to provide a pointer to get to more detailed contact information. The
content/definition of the URI was left for further discussion and possible
specification by the emergency services community itself.

Therefore, we support inclusion of the new information as proposed by James
in the baseline specification.

Regards,

Nadine Abbott

-----Original Message-----
From: geopriv-admin@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Andrew Newton
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:06 AM
To: James M. Polk
Cc: Peterson, Jon; geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Offered Text into PIDF-LO ID

On Mar 23, 2004, at 7:18 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
>
> Users should be aware that this information can inadvertently
> provide additional information to the receiver, increasing the
> effective resolution of the geospatial or civil information. For
> example, if the LO includes only state-level information, including
> that the location information was provided by Columbia University
> provides a strong indication that the Target is actually located in
> a four-block area in Manhattan.
>

I consider this a red flag. The purpose of this group is to consider
privacy in the sending of location information, and this simply ignores
the issue. That is not to say that I disfavor this idea. I simply
think it requires much more thought.

For instance, what purpose does the URI serve? Does an emergency
response center actually do lookups in whois based on the domain name
in a URI? Is sip:noc@cavtel.net really going to help me during a 911
call? I think not. It will more likely go unanswered, as is common
when most people attempt to contact my ISP via any other means than
email or their web-based complaint form. In this case, all that has
been done is that the privacy constraints have been ignored.

I think something more than a URI is needed for this to be useful.

Again, I do not have any objection to hammering out this idea. I just
don't believe we have thought it through with enough detail to include
it in the base PIDF-LO spec.

So, can this be done as an extension?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:58:57 -0500