Re: [Geopriv] Scope of 3825 fixes

["Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson at andrew.com>]

1 we should do - yes.
2 I don't care about.
3 we don't need to do - no.
4 definitely not - no.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2009 7:10 PM
> To: 'GEOPRIV'
> Subject: [Geopriv] Scope of 3825 fixes
> 
> 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

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