RE: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;>
Date: Fri Feb 02 2007 - 08:29:29 EST

Please then, Brian, tell me what useful information you think the resolution parameters convey to you as the DHCP client in terms of understanding the nature of the point location? And, for the record, the argument that uncertainty - or area associated with location - is somehow only pertinent to mobile access networks is quite bogus as far as I'm concerned. If the DHCP server can only associate an approximate location with a particular end point then it's totally appropriate to provide uncertainty for that location regardless of whether the end point is mobile or fixed. It's obvious to anyone who actually wants to see it that there has been a switch in the stated intent of this RFC and the resultant verbal gymnastics are down to considerably more than just poorly chosen words. Cheers, Martin ________________________________ From: Brian Rosen [] Sent: Fri 2/2/2007 11:54 PM To: 'Henning Schulzrinne'; Dawson, Martin Cc: 'GEOPRIV WG' Subject: RE: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates Could I ask the chairs to figure out a way to stop this incessant bickering? I have an opinion about the matter, but so what, we have a lot of opinions. What we need is a rough consensus on whether 3825 is useful as is, or needs to be changed. We have heard all of these arguments over and over, and I don't think we are changing anyone's mind here. Maybe we should ask for a hum in Prague. Maybe we should ask for comments from people who haven't weighed in. Maybe we should seek more outside experts. But just to continue to have Martin D, Martin T and James W repeating the same thing over and over, while John S, Marc L and occasionally Henning (who doesn't need an initial to distinguish him from any other Henning) repeat the same thing over and over isn't getting us anywhere. Oh, just for the record, while I think some of the wording in 3825 was poorly chosen, I see the value in the resolution parameter, understand how I use it to construct a PIDF-LO with geoshapes, don't think uncertainty has a practical value in the DHCP location configuration use case, and don't think 3825 needs to be changed. Brian ________________________________________ From: Henning Schulzrinne [] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:44 AM To: Dawson, Martin Cc: GEOPRIV WG Subject: Re: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates It is common practice to send encodings of real number quantities in protocols whose inherent precision is constrained by the encoding rules - conversion to a real quantity assumes proceeding digits are zero. Adding another parameter to further (artificially?) constrain the protocol's encoding precision serves no value - it's not something I've seen in other protocols - and, as above, carries a contradictory interpretation. I'm curious how you would do this with fixed-point binary numbers, unless you add a length or mask parameter of some sort. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:29:29 -0600

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 02 2007 - 08:29:17 EST