Hi all,
Assuming the consensus expressed in the GEOPRIV meeting (to fix, not
replace 3825) is confirmed by the list, I would like to get a feeling
for what scope should be allowed for these fixes.
There are 4 modifications that have been proposed across the 3 drafts:
1. Addition of a switch that changes the meaning of the "*res" fields
2. Deprecation of the "floor" altitude type
3. Addition of an uncertainty radius (i.e., a GML circle)
4. Switch to a TLV-based geo-element format
Number (1) seems clearly in scope, since this is the fix that was
agreed
to at IETF 71 (Philadelphia).
Number (4) seems clearly out of scope, since it breaks backward
compatibility and substantially replaces RFC 3825.
What do people think about (2) and (3)?
--Richard
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
