Something like The US Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) has established a requirement [in 19XX] that cell phones using GPS can be located within 100 m with 95% confidence. This requirement is generally met by current deployments in North America.
The current wording implies a verifiable fact, which none of the citations I provided come close to supporting. References to unknown documents from the pre-SA-abolishment era aren't all that helpful to an outside reader. (For example, the "urban canyon" problem isn't likely to affect Paris and Amsterdam all that much, and Iceland doesn't have to worry about leaves...) Also, as far as I know, there isn't any great new technology on the horizon that will magically shrink this from 100 m to 3 cm. The only thing that will help a bit in the next few years is more satellites (part of the Galileo effort) and, in some limited cases, differential GPS. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)#Services) Henning On Mar 10, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: > 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
