Subject: RE: [Geopriv] CORRECTION to draft-winterbottom-geopriv-pdif-lo-pr ofile-00 review

From: "James Winterbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:20:31 +1100

Thanks for your comments James.
We are fully aware that the rules are not quite yet but we did need to start
somewhere.
Hopefully we bash some of these out this afternoon and on the list over the
coming weeks.

Cheers
James

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of James M. Polk
Sent: Thursday, 10 March 2005 12:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] CORRECTION to
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-00 review

James (and group)

It was late when I did this review and I mixed meanings in part of my 
review of this ID.

The ID's rules #3 and #5 do not violate the laws I stated when regarding 
all tuples within a single document being the same location.

I mixed the meaning in my head (through IETF numbness this week) to think 
the ID was stating "within the same message"; meaning all LOs within the 
same message have to be pointed at the same location. This latter case 
cannot be true for the reasons I stated in the first review.

I agree with this part of the ID as is in this case that all tuples within 
the same PIDF-LO document point at the same location (though I'm still 
confused about the priority angle).

Sorry for this error on my part.

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv