[SIPForum-discussion] [Sip] SIPit 20 survey summary

[Henning Schulzrinne]

I mis-spoke. I was actually thinking of a different solution, more  
appropriate to the SIP header model. After all, for geo, two numbers  
(long/lat) in WGS84 datum are all that matters in most circumstances,  
on occasion augmented by a third (some 'measurement accuracy'  
indication).

The XMPP XML model that Juha and you refer to isn't all that much  
simpler than GEOPRIV civic or GML Point, just different, as you note.  
(Whether supporting the multitude of geometric shapes in the pdif-lo  
profile spec is truly required and where is another discussion which  
belongs elsewhere.)

I don't know if by 'security' you refer to the embedded privacy  
policies; in most cases, restrictive default values would do the  
trick for those. Plus, for emergency calls, few PSAPs are going to  
observe 'do not distribute' or 'do not retain' in any event, simply  
because the law in many jurisdictions contradicts those desires.

Henning

On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> Hi Henning,
>
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0080.html takes an interesting  
> approach by largely ignoring previous work on geolocation. It is  
> just too attractive to create your own flavor of civic and geodetic  
> location information format.
>
> Interestingly enough there is a full-blown solution for XMPP  
> available as well that builds on the OMA protocols. I have to  
> search for the reference, if someone cares. That one is far more  
> complex than GEOPRIV.
>
> If you argue for simplicity then you refer to  http://www.xmpp.org/ 
> extensions/xep-0080.html.
>
> If you argue for functionality, different environments and  
> interworking with existing systems then you point to the OMA  
> extension.
>
> It's so easy. Translated to our work in GEOPRIV this would mean the  
> following: If we want to convince people to use it then we just  
> point them to the easy WLAN or enterprise case with a simple civic  
> or a simple point representation.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> PS: Last November I was at a conference on mobility protocols.  
> Someone gave a presentation on a new mobility protocol design. The  
> author claimed it was very simple. Indeed, it was simple -- because  
> it just didn't care about security.
>