Hi Martin,
At 09:55 11-04-2013, Martin Thomson wrote:
Ah yes, I'm not sure whether this was made explicit in this draft
(probably not), but we take the view that the Device is a proxy for a
user (Target in geopriv-parlance). In terms of protocols and location
determination that's the only reasonable assumption to make. That's a
really important point though, not something we should be taking on
faith. I'll make sure to add a note.
I don't disagree with the above. I guess that the easier path is to
add a note. Alissa mentioned referencing Section 3.2 of RFC 6280.
I don't know where you are going with the "unknowingly informant
model", but it's true that in some cases, measurements that are
provided to a LIS might not be useful. If your LIS is operated by a
cellular operator, then maybe (though it's only a maybe) the cellular
operator wont be able to use the information to improve a location
estimate. Similarly, they might not know how to deal with GLONASS
pseudoranges.
In easy terms the "unknowingly informant model" is about a device
providing information related to other people; i.e. data collection
of information not belonging to the Target.
Implementations have choices on the spectrum between: provide nothing
and see if the LIS asks for more information; and provide everything
and don't worry about the extra stuff. The latter choice actually has
some implications with respect to performance and time, so most likely
it will go somewhere in between the two.
Thanks for explaining this.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
ietf-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
