OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: Relevant and related work to the CAP and the EM TC in the IETF

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.


FYI: This proposed (draft) spec uses the same normative reference database
for coordinate reference system as the OGC - the EPSG.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]