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

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

I have only had a brief look at this document but I'd like to second
some of the concerns raised so far.

1) If locations can be registered on a fcfs basis we can expect
   receivers to see locations that they are unfamiliar with.  As such,
   we need to do better about internationalization for locations.  It
   is not good enough to treat locations as identifiers that are not
   displayed to a user if receivers are often going to run into
   locations.


2) Many of the definitions seem arbitrary.  club vs bar vs cafe vs
   restaurant as an example.


3) The fact that some entries describe holonym relations without any
   defined structure to deal with this is at least concerning.

--Sam


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