Representation of Uncertainty and Confidence in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
RFC 7459

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Richard Barnes) Yes

Alissa Cooper Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-15 for -03)
No email
send info
- I agree with Kathleen's point that a discussion of privacy
would be good. Perhaps if you could cover how
privacy-(un)friendliness might vary with uncertainty and
confidence that'd be good. Presumably privacy goes "up" as
uncertainty increases and "down" as confidence increases, at
least in some sense? Or if not, explaining why would be
good. I'd say a sentence or two in the security considerations
might be enough for that, perhaps with a warning that
its easy to go wrong when looking for "more" privacy.

- 3.1: This section just wasn't very clear to me. Could that
just be safely deleted? (Or the last para at least.)

- section 5, 1st bullet - does this really belong here? Its
fine to have it here, but I wondered if it'd really be
better somewhere else. (Not suggesting you re-open something
else but just wondered.)

- p15: ECEF is used without expansion

- 5.5: "In the absence of specific recommendations, this
document suggests that the probability be greater than 50%
before a decision is made. " That's not very clear to me. I
think you just mean that the default is to say yes, its in
the area of interest if the probability of that is >50%.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-16 for -03)
No email
send info
I am balloting No-Obj on the premise that the shepherding AD is comfortable with this document.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-17 for -03)
No email
send info
This document is really well written, and was interesting to read; thanks.  And thanks for addressing the small points I had.

   Location generators SHOULD attempt to ensure that confidence is equal
   in each dimension when generating location information.  This
   restriction, while not always practical, allows for more accurate
   scaling, if scaling is necessary.

Thanks for that: this is how "SHOULD" ought always be specified.  I might remember this to use as an example.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-24)
No email
send info
Thanks for adding in a couple of sentences on privacy considerations.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-14 for -03)
No email
send info
2 - This section (and some of the longer explanations in other sections) made me curious who the target audience for this document is. I'm no stats guy, but I found the information in this section pretty straightforward, and thought that a simple pointer to a reference or just a list of definitions would probably have been enough. This document does seem to go on at length about some pretty basic topics. But maybe I'm not the average reader.

3.1 - "infinitesimally larger"?

4.1 - I'm not clear on the treatment of a confidence of "unknown". How does this affect implementations (as against a missing confidence)?

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) Abstain

Comment (2014-10-16 for -03)
No email
send info
I remain completely spooked by the Geopriv work. I understand that I
am "in the rough" with my views and I understand that there are 
implementations, etc., etc. But I still think that the privay issues
of Geopriv remain poorly addressed.

On that basis, I will not block this work, but I will also not support 



   The key concepts of uncertainty and confidence as they pertain to
   location information are defined.  Methods for the manipulation of
   location estimates that include uncertainty information are outlined.

Are those general statements, or are they intended to refer to this