[Geopriv] Re: Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 23:48:29 EDT

At 10:42 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>James M. Polk wrote:
>>I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to
>>catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is
>>time to address it now.
>Given that both need to define different tags (XML element names in one
>case, numeric tags in the other), I think such reference would be difficult,

but they both have a way too similar chart that doesn't match -
implementors down the road might not see the subtle differences and we end
up with another Mars Probe crashing into the planet because one set of
engineers used km and the other used miles and both groups were happy until
there were flames and smoke

Not being consistent MUST lead to ignoring of fields in the IETF... this is
not good unless (see below)

>even leaving timing issues aside. I think we can handle the
>synchronization of the documents

this means the civil doc needs to change to exactly what the pidf-lo doc
has (as the synchronization is up to the most mobile doc - and that's the
civil doc near WGLC, but far from IETF LC)

>- the list of elements is small.

agreed they are in the details side of addressing, but if someone sending a
message was coded to the civil doc and includes BLDG, and the recipient's
device was coded to the pidf-lo doc without such a reference, the BLDG
value must be ignored by the recipient.

Maybe this is the lone identifier on the Columbia Univ campus ("The Law
School"). Leaving everything else consistent, a responder is going to go to
a campus address and have the floor and room number, but not which building
the caller was in. That might mean less lawyers that year...

This I think presents a problem.



                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:48:29 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 10 2004 - 23:57:06 EDT