The current text is: As of the date of this memo, typical assisted GPS uncertainty in mobile phones with 95% confidence is 100 m. As technology advances, the accuracy requirements for location will need to be tightened.
That is a statement of fact that is backed up by the U.S. Regulatory docket. Above this text is a requirement (3 cm). How would you suggest rewording? Brian On 3/10/10 10:43 AM, "Henning Schulzrinne" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
