Re: [Geopriv] problems with civil location in PIDF-LO

From: Andrew Newton ^lt;andy@hxr.us>
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 18:08:12 EST

On Nov 18, 2004, at 5:47 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Rohan
>
> You make a compelling argument to change the text with some well
> thought out examples given. I'm not sure how others feel, but this is
> worth discussion and deciding if it should be accounted for, or is
> considered too late in the process.

I think the differentiation between A-space and H-space is interesting.
  But I think it is too late in the process to stop the PDIF-LO v1 from
going to RFC. This is certainly a substantive change request that
can't simply be done at AUTH48.

At IETF 61, Jon admitted that it shouldn't be surprising that there
will be needed changes to PIDF-LO. This should be put in the list of
changes for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv20.

> This also directly affects the civic-address ID from Henning
> (obviously) that is in WGLC now.

Not exactly correct, but we still have time to change things here. But
if the dhcp-civil draft is changed what do we do about the mismatch
between it and PIDF-LO? Given that there are likely to be more changes
lined for urn:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv20 than just this one, my
suggestion is to address all of these issues at a later time with
GEOCONF_CIVIC2 (if we deem it necessary).

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Received on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:08:12 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 18:30:11 EST