Re: [Geopriv] I-D, Action:draft-george-geopriv-lamp-post-00.txt

From: Geoff Thompson ^lt;thompson@ieee.org>
Date: Sun Jul 04 2010 - 15:45:13 EDT

Brian-
It seems lik a bad idea to let perfectly good assumptions (like a MP or
a house number "needs" a road name) get screwed up by unusual exception
as you have noted.

Why not, instead, just charge ahead but allow a special value of road
name ("NULL" ?) that notes that in this case it is known that a road
name does not exist? The entered value should probably be
differentiated from that which would be provided if the value of road
name were "unknown".

Geoff
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:53:18 -0400
> From: Brian Rosen<br@brianrosen.net>
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: I-D
> Action:draft-george-geopriv-lamp-post-00.txt
> To: Carl Reed<creed@opengeospatial.org>
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Message-ID:<917C86FD-5CF8-42D8-AF6C-18339497D1FA@brianrosen.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
> DelSp="yes"
>
> I am a co-author on this draft, and the milepost addition to the lamp
> post original was motivated by the NENA requirement to have a milepost.
>
> I agree that the MP nearly always needs a road name. So does a house
> number. The current documents don't have requirements like that,
> primarily because we keep finding odd cases that don't meet what we
> thought was a simple rule.
>
> Brian
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:45:13 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 04 2010 - 15:45:45 EDT