RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Wed Jun 20 2007 - 19:52:51 EDT

Hi Jerome, Thanks for your comments. So to put an example around your proposed clarification, you think that I should be able to express in a PIDF-LO my current location, and say my nominal home location? I guess I can see where communicating this in a PIDF-LO may be useful, though I am not sure how you can effectively convey that this is home vs current location. Certainly the application we have most discussed to date, call routing, could be sorely confused by doing this. Though, I would be the first to admit that we have only scratched the tip of the iceberg with regards to applications. I found the suggested change in wording quite confusing, and I was really shooting for clarity in these requirements. Would it be reasonable to change the MUST in the original wording to it is RECOMMENED that? This would not preclude it, but would discourage it for general use. Cheers James > -----Original Message----- > From: jerome.grenier@bell.ca [mailto:jerome.grenier@bell.ca] > Sent: Thursday, 21 June 2007 3:11 AM > To: rjsparks@nostrum.com; geopriv@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt > > Hi all, > > The only concern I have is with rule #3 (in section 3): > > Rule #3: Providing more than one location chunk in a single presence > document (PIDF) MUST only be done if all objects refer to the same > place. > > While I agree that that would minimize ambiguity, I find it incompatible > with RFC-4479 ("A Data Model for Presence") which distinguishes between > presence attributes for a person, services and devices. Using this > construct, it is quite possible to express more that one "discrete > location" throughout the whole document (for different devices, for > example). I wouldn't want to discard rule #3 altogether however, so I > think adding just a bit of semantics might be sufficient. For example: > > Rule #3: Providing more than one location chunk in a single presence > document (PIDF) or in a specific construct, within that document, > that represents a single conceptual entity MUST only be done if all > objects refer to the same place. > > I don't care much about the wording... I would just like to avoid having a > legitimate PIDF-LO guideline limit presence information expressiveness, > although I acknowledge that achieving expressiveness and unambiguity at > the same time is not always easy. > > I don't have any specific comment on the geodetic shapes part (sections 4 > and 5) as I'm not very familiar with this area, so all of this sounds good > to me. > > Also, some minor corrections: > > - (in the abstract) "To allow successfully interoperability" should read > "To allow successful interoperability" > > - (at the end of rule #9) "with the first document be considered first" > should read "with the first document considered first" > > - (in section 3.2) "Applying rules #6 and #7 are applied" should read > "Applying rules #6 and #7" > > - (in section 6) "shapes and volumes should assumed" should read "shapes > and volumes should be assumed" > > - (in section 6) "when associated representing a Target's location" should > read "when representing a Target's location" > > Thanks, > > Jérôme Grenier > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com] > Envoyé : 18 juin 2007 11:10 > À : geopriv@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt > > I have seen zero responses to this call so far. Please get your > response in by the 22nd (that's this Friday). > > RjS > > On Jun 4, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > > > All - > > > > Hannes and James tell me that http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-07.txt > > is ready for WGLC. This document's been around for a long time, but > > it's been awhile since > > it's received comment on the list. Now is a good time to read > > through it and make sure it says what you > > remember it should say. > > > > I'd like to get a good record of how much review the document's > > received, so please respond even if > > you have no changes to suggest. If you are ok with the document > > progressing, but don't plan to review > > it yourself, I'd like to hear that too. > > > > Please send comments to the list by June 22. > > > > Thanks, > > > > RjS > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Geopriv mailing list > > Geopriv@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > Geopriv@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv > > > _______________________________________________ > Geopriv mailing list > Geopriv@ietf.org > https://www1.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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:52:51 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 20 2007 - 19:52:58 EDT