I would simply state it as a requirement, rather than a statement of fact, which is very likely is not (or only with a long list of caveats).
On Mar 10, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > The citation is the U.S. Regulatory spec, which is (barely) achievable. > There is a very long record available that documents the back and forth with > experts arguing on both sides. The conclusions of even the PSAP folks, who > really want a tighter spec, is that 100 meter 95% measured at county level > is as good as we can get right now. For this document, that's good enough. > > Brian > > > > > On 3/10/10 10:22 AM, "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 10, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: >> >>> This is a (probably pointless) discussion on the 100 meter uncertainty >>> number that is found in -framework. It is a realistic number today, and a >>> much smaller number is not, in my opinion, realistic. >> >> I'd prefer citations to opinions :-) >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
