Re: [Ecrit] Consensus Call: Precise Location Information not available to End Host

[Andrew Newton <andy at hxr.us>]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> I'm less worried about DHCP, but rather about PIDF-LO, as the  
> variability and extensibility of that data element is much larger.  
> One of the problems is that a device has to mark the location  
> information with a profile, instead of just copying the data. I  
> think it would be better to have the client provide the LO, and the  
> server reject it if can't parse that particular GML-derived format.

The entire LO?  I thought it was a part of our requirements that  
identifying information not be sent inside of LoST.  It just needs to  
copy the location information XML.  I don't really understand your  
concern.

BTW, while some of us implicitly understand this, do have it written  
anywhere that RFC 3825 without floor is geodetic-2d and that RFC 4776  
is the civic profile.

> This imposes little additional burden on the server, since it will  
> have to check the LO in any event. After all, just because the  
> client says it's sending 2D-geo doesn't mean that the XML actually  
> contains no more than 2D-geo.

I agree.

> We still need to define a set of must-implement profiles for the  
> server. Negotiation makes no sense in this case (due to the multi- 
> hop nature of LoST), so this set is likely to remain fairly  
> constant over long time periods.

Huh?  Didn't we already discuss this?  geodetic-2d and civic are the  
two base profiles.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit