RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

["Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom at andrew.com>]

Title: "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

Hi Barbara,

 

I believe that the location URI fits very nicely with the other 3.

Presently the location URI points to something on the LIS that either has the location(s) or can get the location(s) of the device. The HELD dereference draft basically said that the requesting device can ask for only a specific of location, but with the demise of the context, so to went the type of control you are asking for below. This is why I wrote a separate context draft, so a Target can specifically control the policies associated with a location URI. I am now of the opinion that this should be an extension rather than something that we introduce into the base specification.

 

I also don’t believe that the URI is always returned with “any”, it says that it may be however, or and LIS may return any other type. It is any, not all.

 

The dereference draft has explicit text around the dereferencer requesting a location URI type:

 

‘The LCS MUST respond with a 400 "Request Error" if it receives a request for a locationURI where HELD is being used as a dereference protocol.’

 

Obviously the error number is changing, but the condition was considered.

 

Cheers

James

 

 

---

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652 at att.com]
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 4:20 AM
To: Mary Barnes; geopriv at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

 

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

 

---

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.barnes at nortel.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:02 PM
To: geopriv at ietf.org
Subject: [Geopriv] "Postal" and "Jurisdicational" civic locations - reprise

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

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

*****

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