On 11/27/13, 14:21 , Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <B939184E-AE28-44CE-A6E5-80EDB34E32CD(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>, Ted
Lemon writes:
I thought the point was for it to advise network geolocation survey bots
that the hotspot with this ssid is mobile and can't be used for
geolocation.
The point was for it to advise network survey bots that the hotspot
with this ssid can't/shouldn't be recorded in any database.
There are reasons to set this other than the ap is mobile.
While it is possible to set it for other reasons like privacy, I'm not
sure the motivations/interests fully align for all parties for these
other reasons.
Where as, with mobile APs and geolocation the motivations/interests of
the parties fully align. If you have a mobile AP and it is mapped in a
location and then you move, your location will be inaccurate, therefore
you should set the "_nomap" suffix. And, if you are a geolocation
provider and are mapping APs, you will create inaccurate information if
you map mobile APs, and therefore it is in your interest to not map the
location of APs with the "_nomap" suffix.
Opt in or out mechanisms only work when the parties interests are
aligned. So in reality I think both Mark and Ted are correct.
I'd support this being documented in an informational RFC, I'd like to
see a full discussion of the advantages and disadvantages, as well as a
call for a more formal solutions to this and some of the related issues
in the thread. Does Hotspot 2.0 or other Wifi Alliance stuff cover
this? Or at least there may be useful references there.
Thanks.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================