Re: [Geopriv] [Ecrit] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Jul 31 2008 - 17:24:03 EDT

Hi James,

The big PIDF-LO horse has long since bolted from the stables.
If you are looking for a lean and slick way to represent location for specific functions, such as routing, then we need to totally re-think our representation and perhaps look at binary forms.

I think that it is too late to argue that PIDF-LO is too big.

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
Sent: Thu 7/31/2008 2:46 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; Thomson, Martin; Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [Ecrit] Announce: Specifying Derived Location in a PIDF-LO
 
At 04:44 PM 7/30/2008, Winterbottom, James wrote:
>Hi James,
>
>"how about just having a URI (to be dereferenced) as the only
><derived-from> element value?
>
>I keep seeing a separate <location-info> element with a full location
>as the derived location. This is the waste, and expensive, bandwidth
>hog that should be avoided."
>
>[AJW] The only reason you keep seeing this is because you haven't
>read the draft:
>The abstract says "The source
> location may reside in the same PIDF-LO or be a remote document
> referenced by a location URI and associated id fragement."

I'm saying it shouldn't be possible to have this long, protracted
dual <location-info> element in the first place.

>Section 4 on page 7 is titled "Linking to External Locations"
>With figure 2 showing how this is done.

this should be your proposal

>And to cap it off I sent an email to the list yesterday asking how
>figure 2 supposedly doubled the size the PIDF-LO.
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg06141.html

great -- but some of us are occasionally busy enough that we don't
get to our email within 1 day's time, so stop berating me for not
immediately having read and understood and agreed with your note....

jeez, dude, lighten up

>The concept of this is a trivial thing and really doesn't warrant a
>complete requirements document for it.

that, I believe, is your opinion -- which occurs towards your work.

>If you want more information in the document about taking care not
>to over inflate the PIDF-LO when SIP is being used over UDP, we can do that.

ignorance of the constraints of other protocols is an interesting
plea, especially when we've talked about this topic before --
including face2face.

>I have received some other very good feed back from others also that
>I will include in the next rev.
>
>Cheers
>James
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>this email is prohibited.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[mf2]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:24:03 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 17:27:19 EDT