Re: [emergency] Re: Relevant and related work to the CAP and theEM TC in the IETF

[Allen Wyke <emtc@nc.rr.com>]

Good information. I posted the reply to the EM IF SC, because I think
that is probably the most appropriate group to be aware of this. Also,
you mention an attachment in your email, however I did not see anything
attached. Can you resend?

Thanx - Allen

On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 14:58, Carl Reed wrote: 
> This is an informative email.
> 
> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has a working group called
> GEOPRIV. Their primary concern is the ability to 1.) communicate location at
> a fundamental level in the Internet infrastructure and 2.) protect the
> privacy of the location being communicated. The work of this group has been
> progressing for 18 months and is moving toward providing formal
> specifications for review and adoption within the IETF process. Currently,
> there is a draft document that is well regarded titled "Location
> Configuration Information for GEOPRIV" dated June 2003. The title is a bit
> misleading as it actually proposes an option to the DHCP payload to allow
> incorporation of basic location information.
> 
> As stated in the introduction:
> 
> This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [1]
>    Option for the geographic location of the client, to be provided by
>    the server.
> 
>    The DHCP server is assumed to have determined the location from the
>    Circuit-ID Relay Agent Information Option (RAIO) defined (as SubOpt
>    1) in [2]. In order to translate the circuit (switch port
>    identifier) into a location, the DHCP server is assumed to have
>    access to a service that maps from circuit-ID to the location at
>    which the circuit connected to that port terminates in the building;
>    for example, the location of the wall jack.
> 
>    The Location Configuration Information (LCI) format presented here
>    could be considered a subset of the information which would be
>    included in a GEOPRIV Location Object. This LCI is part of the
>    generation of location by the GEOPRIV origin.
> 
> The reason I am providing this information is that the original reason for
> providing this proposal was Emergency Services and Response. The thought was
> that many folks in an emergency situation will not be able to transmit
> (X,Y,Z) from something like a GPS enabled device. Instead, they will be in a
> building and are facing an emergency situation. With IPv6, it is possible to
> determine the location of any IP enabled device (computer, phone, etc).
> 
> Hence the proposal (see attachment).
> 
> So my thinking is that a CAP message could possibly originate from sources
> other than those that have been considered. While not mutually exclusive,
> such inputs do need to be considered and possibly mapped to the CAP.
> 
> Carl
> OGC
> 
> FYI: This proposed (draft) spec uses the same normative reference database
> for coordinate reference system as the OGC - the EPSG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php

-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency