RE: [Ecrit] Location hiding: Consensus?

["Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom at andrew.com>]

I am an advocate of solution 3


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy at hxr.us]
> Sent: Friday, 11 May 2007 6:44 AM
> To: Matt Lepinski
> Cc: Winterbottom, James; ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Location hiding: Consensus?
> 
> 
> On May 10, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
> > 1) I believe James began by stating that there are business
> > requirements for location hiding, and that these are real
> > requirements. I believe everyone participating in this thread
> > agrees on that point. (Ignoring any value judgement about whether
> > these requirements are good or evil)
> 
> Well, I thought Henning disagreed with there being real business
> requirements.
> 
> > 2) James seems to believe that providing "fuzzed" location to the
> > end-point is a bad idea. This would seem to be a fundamental source
> > of disagreement with Henning who has supported sending "fuzzed"
> > location to the end-point.
> >
> > Henning's argument seems to be that PSAP URI is already a form of
> > "fuzzed" location that we're already providing, and James seems to
> > be concerned with the access network provider being held
> > accountable for providing "low quality" location.
> 
> I am not a particular fan of fuzzing either.  We've got little
> deployment experience with this architecture and who knows what
> trouble this will invite.
> 
> And fuzzing adds fuel to the fire for those that say VoIP 9-1-1
> doesn't work or is not reliable.
> 
> > Is this understanding correct?
> >
> > 3)The whole business relationships argument is especially confusing
> > to me since it seems that both Henning and James agree that ISPs
> > should not be required to have business relationships with VSPs. (I
> > don't think I've heard anyone in this thread argue against that
> > basic point).
> >
> > It is reasonable to say that a particular proposal is bad because
> > it would require contractual relationships between ISPs and VSPs,
> > but so far I don't think I've heard James argue in support of any
> > particular proposal.
> 
> I thought James was an advocate of #3.
> 
> What we seem to have an issue with is the agreement on the
> requirements, and this is causing people not to agree on a solution.
> 
> -andy
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit