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

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu Jun 28 2007 - 05:42:21 EDT

We definitely need to allow devices (and maybe services) to be at
different locations, as that is part of the composition algorithm and
can be used to detect, for example, which service is most likely to
succeed. A reference from lo-profile to the data model document would
be most helpful.

On Jun 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, <jerome.grenier@bell.ca>
<jerome.grenier@bell.ca> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> The example I had in mind was more along the lines of expressing
> the fact that two of my devices are currently at different
> locations (using RFC-4479 "A Data Model for Presence") and that
> I'll be at another location tomorrow (using RFC-4481 "Timed
> Presence Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)
> to Indicate Status Information for Past and Future Time
> Intervals"), all using one PIDF document.
>
> As long as it's clear in everyone's mind that draft-ietf-geopriv-
> pidf-lo-profile does not restrict PIDF-LO documents to the only-one-
> location-now scenario, I'm fine. I guess that when a PIDF
> document's structure brings enough semantics to allow me to
> unambiguously interpret different location pieces scattered in the
> document, I won't need the guidelines of draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-
> profile. However, if a very scoped part of my semantically-
> structured PIDF document exposes potentially ambiguous pieces of
> location information, then I'll be happy that the originator of the
> document has followed draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile so that
> I'll know that these pieces of location information are not in
> conflict. It is this whole-document-or-scoped-part nuance that I
> tried to bring to rule #3, but I realize it was a bit confusing.
>
> Either the MUST is changed into RECOMMENDED for rule #3 or
> (preferably) some text is added to clarify that these rules (those
> with "MUST") are required only when there is potential for ambiguity.
>
> Jérôme
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> Envoyé : 20 juin 2007 19:53
> À : Grenier, Jerome (6002687); rjsparks@nostrum.com; geopriv@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-profile-07.txt
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:42:21 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 28 2007 - 12:12:41 EDT