We need both I think, because of the way the regulations are written. I don't think there is a simple way to convert that would be acceptable. In theory, if we knew the terrain height at the location accurately enough, we could calculate what we need, but that is an onerous requirement I think.
Brian On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:53 AM, Vincent Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > The various versions of the proposed drafts of the PAWS protocol tended to > distinguish between "device location" and "antenna height". > > I think we should combine them into a single 3-D location of the radiation > center of (the antenna of) the device. > > Does that sound right? > > The proposed draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00 defines the following parameters > for location and height: > > latitude > longitude > locationUncertainty > locationConfidence > > height > heightType > heightUncertainty > > This is very close to the fields defined by RFC 6225, which has the > parameters: > > latitude > latitudeUncertainty > longitude > longitudeUncertainty > altitude > altitudeUncertainty > altitudeType > > Should PAWS reference RFC 6225 and list the following differences? > > - The "altitudeType" should be "above means sea level" (WGS84) or "above > ground", instead of the ones defined in the RFC. > > - Add confidence values along each axis. > > If this acceptable, then we can think about defining JSON encoding of RFC > 6225 for use by PAWS. > > Thanks. > > -- > -vince > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
