RE: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Thu Feb 01 2007 - 22:11:23 EST

This is not a mistake, the specification clearly attempts to represent an area, and one of the authors at least has clearly expressed this more than once. The statement in section 2.1 of the document makes the examples in the appendix normative, not informative as it describes how to use the fields. RFC-3825 has clear errors and problems that cannot simply be corrected with an informative document as is currently being proposed. ________________________________ From: Andrew Newton [mailto:andy@hxr.us] Sent: Friday, 2 February 2007 2:02 PM To: Winterbottom, James Cc: Dawson, Martin; geopriv@ietf.org; Marc Linsner; Thomson, Martin Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates On Feb 1, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Winterbottom, James wrote: Here is a quote from section 2.1 of RFC-3825 relating to how resolution parameters are to be used: " The examples in the appendix illustrate that a smaller value in the resolution field increases the AREA within which the device is located." This does not seem to imply a point to me, since this is normative text. To me, it implies that somebody made a mistake. If it isn't, then I am confused. -andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:11:23 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 01 2007 - 22:10:51 EST