RE: locationURI as a separate flag (was RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: locationURI as a separate flag (was RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise
Title: "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise
OK. I don't think it's important.
Barbara
Hi Barbara,
We did discuss this suggestion in the past. One
reason why it was decided to keep it as is (and the reason put forth for the
discussion in Chicago) was that this seems to complicate things and introduce
additional complexity in terms of handling a locationURI boolean along with
an "any" for the locationType (e.g., if the boolean is false, but "any" is
requested and there are only locationURIs available at that specific LIS, what
is the expected behavior?). And, as you mention, the current approach is
also consistent with the dereferencing being handled separate from the request
for location.
As is, "any" will return all forms of location types,
including all forms of locationURIs that are available, per the description of
locationURI in section 7.5. I guess you're asking for a way of getting
only a specific scheme of locationURI? And, in this case, I'm assuming
you'd be using the "exact" attribute?
Mary.
I'm uncomfortable with mixing locationURI with the
other 3. A device should be able to request a locationURI that points to a
civic, geodetic, or any. With locationURI mixed in, this suggests that
locationURI is always "any", or that whoever requests dereferencing of the URI
can request the type.
Barbara
Hi all,
This thread never seemed to conclude with clear
consensus as to whether folks see a need for both these specific location types
rather than being able to use a common "civic"
locationType. I went back through the threads and the
majority of the responses indicated that both of the values should be the same
(with Canada being the exception?). Since the thread did diverge
somewhat (into how conversions etc. are done), I would like to do a quick query
to see if folks are okay with removing those two values from the locationType in
the HELD draft?
And, just to be precise, we're proposing changing
locationType from a set of {any, civic, geodetic, postalCivic,
jurisdictionalCivic, locationURI} to a set of
{any, civic, geodetic, locationURI}.
Regards,
Mary
Editor HELD
*****
The information transmitted is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from all computers.
GA625
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
