Re: [Geopriv] RFC 3825 Updates

From: Andrew Newton ^lt;andy@hxr.us>
Date: Fri Feb 02 2007 - 10:00:21 EST

On Feb 2, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> Could I ask the chairs to figure out a way to stop this incessant
> bickering?

Brian, the incessant bickering is the sound of the sausage being made
in the IETF. Besides, this list has been a little quiet of late.

> We have heard all of these arguments over and over, and I don't
> think we are
> changing anyone's mind here.

That's exactly why I gave my observations, so that new voices could
be heard on this. I agree that the usual voices in this argument
have come to a stalemate.

> 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.

Thanks very much for giving your opinion (I'm rather shocked you
withheld it in the first place :) ). Just one question, do the
values conveyed in 3825 constitute a point or an area?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:00:21 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 02 2007 - 10:00:41 EST