Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

> It seems from a quick glance through it that draft-ietf-simple- 
> rpid-08 gives context.
>
> The initial list of locations seems entirely arbitrary, and most of  
> the definitions seem woolly and imprecise. Maybe the arbitrariness  
> is intentional, though, and maybe the quality of definitions  
> doesn't matter. I don't know enough about the goals of the  
> underlying effort to comment.

More precise definitions are always helpful, but I don't think it is  
necessary to have a complete catalogue of all possible types of  
locations suitable for an insurance company policy. The goal is that  
if there's a location, that if two people are asked to pick the  
closest label, they'll likely agree and they'll likely find something  
that matches. Clearly, this can be pushed to precision beyond need.  
For example, I doubt that we need to identify median strips on roads  
separately.


> There are some spelling mistakes. That's about as far as my  
> informed commentary on this draft goes :-)
>
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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