|
Here is my personal hum
and the hum of my company in favour of the “location hiding requirements”
documenting effort. An additional comment: James Polk also raised a
very good point: users or end devices providing false location. But, as Brian
pointed out, “a user or a device can always lie.” In my
opinion, if we choose the right solution(s), location hiding can improve this situation
and minimize the risk that users lie about the location (and make the PSAPs
life easier). I don’t want to discuss
location hiding solutions, just try to an example where, in my opinion, the location
information received by the PSAPs is more reliable with location hiding than
without it. Example: if an end device finds out the ESRP (LOST query)
based on a coarse location and sends in the INVITE to the ESRP instead of the
precise location a location URI, the ESRP gets the precise location from the LIS
based on the location URI. The ESRP then sends the precise location directly to
the PSAP. Both the ESRP and the LIS are local and trusted by the local
PSAP. Laura Von: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] Im Auftrag
von hannes.tschofenig at nsn.com Hi all, Henning gave a presentation about this draft at previous IETF
meetings. Although this is a controversal topic we believe it is important to
capture the problem statement and the requirements. This document is NOT meant
to capture solutions -- this is something for future work. We would therefore
like to confirm the hum on the mailing list. If you have not stated your
opinion or if you object please let us know. Deadline for your response: 30 May 2008 Ciao |
_______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit