Re: [Geopriv] Draft GEOPRIV Minutes from IETF 74

From: Alexander Mayrhofer ^lt;alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
Date: Fri Apr 03 2009 - 17:00:31 EDT

 
(short comments inline the raw minutes)

> Mayrofer geo-uri
> Simple, human readable, but defined way to give a simple geo point
> Possible additional options, URI parameters (privacy related)
> TH: Worthwhile to do, but needs more work. Is this really a URI, or a
> human readable format to know its WGS84?
>
> Wants WG adoption
> MT: Need to do something like this. Consider the parameters,
> possibly a
> registry
> JM: Have concerns on privacy. Want some parameters required.
> Needs to
> be "content", not "address".
> JPo: What do you do if the datum isn't WGS84.
> AM: Haven't thought about it

If i remember correctly, the discussion was that there are some regions
in which it is not trivial to reproject the locally used reference
system into WGS84. Martin Thomson (?) said it was always possible, but
sometimes complicated.

I mentioned that we thought about the use of other reference systems,
but for the purpose of less complexity used the universally available
WGS84.

> JPe: More of a format than an object. WG started without defining
> formats, but it's doing it (civic). We can encapsulate this, and
> provide the protections. Pragmatism is hard to argue against
> MT: Simplicity is a good thing here, use WGS84
> HS: Want few options, push complexity to sender, not receiver.

I remember the following discussion: It was mentioned that since there
might always be more "consumers" than "creators" of such URIs, and
reprojection is almost always non-trivial, it might therefore be more
efficient to burden the creator with reprojection. "consumers" might be
less familiar with such issues, and therefore should not be challenged
with handling several reference systems.
 
The use of several reference systems also make comparison operations
quite interesting.

> Show of hands for WG interest? Significant majority yes, no objection
> Show of hands for this doc as basis? Significant majority
> yes, no objection

I do remember Ted Hardie opposing that. He has since sent a seperate
mail about this, too.

Keith Drage also mentioned that the draft does not have proper
boilerplat text (given that there was text copied from from RFC 3986).
I will fix that in the next version.

Alex
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Fri, 3 Apr 2009 23:00:31 +0200

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 03 2009 - 17:05:21 EDT