Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Civic supplementary information field

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:52:46 +1000

(I'm only discussing one aspect of this, hence the title change.)

I tend to agree about having a supplementary field in the Civic form, which
is an admission that we may not be able to anticipate all required fields.

Room is a field in DHCP civi[cl], but not in PIDF-LO XML (not yet Brian, I'm
working on it).  Information like cubicle, workstation, desk or seat isn't
available yet and may be a separate datum to room.  That sort of information
might be important to someone, for example, I can easily imagine work
colleagues wanting to know where I am sitting.

Is there any reason why <SEAT> and <ADDINFO> fields shouldn't be included?

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2005 8:27 AM
To: 'John Schnizlein'; 'Andrew Newton'
Cc: 'GEOPRIV WG'
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] WGLC
ondraft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt

There are programatic reasons for wanting a registry.  Your presence service
may have different rules, for example, depending on where you are.  In the
emergency case, knowledge that it was a residence or business may invoke
different responses (albeit a human likely is in the loop, since they rarely
trust these kinds of things completely).

Your example is a poor one, because room numbers have a field in the XML.

Extra text fields aren't a bad idea, but supplemental, not replacement for
the structured field.

The current emergency system has a structured field that this was derived
from, but its use is evolving.  It's currently "class of service", which has
values like "residential, commercial, pay phone, wireless and VoIP".
Clearly, that is not the right thing going forward.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of John Schnizlein
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:19 PM
To: Andrew Newton
Cc: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC
ondraft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt

Shouldn't the purpose of this location-types-registry be included in 
the document?  In particular, what is the relationship between this and 
the statement in draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-06 that "Thus, this 
draft establishes an IANA registry for civic location data fields. "?

Pending clarification of the above, it seems premature to press forward 
with WG last call on an IANA registry of this sort when there is a 
DISCUSS in the IESG review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-06 
questioning this sort of structured addresses:
  "Since these addresses are mostly intended for human use (emergency
   workers) who know the local context, why not have a completely non
   predescribed field for an adress? This also solves the problem for
   other useful info as: 'room: 1:123', or cubicle 450D.
   In addition, many addresses especially in rural areas are not only
   non-standard, they also can describe a rather large area where the
   user needs a human readable field to make it somewhat more clear to
   where to find the user, for example, when entering the farm, look
   for the building with the red roof."
Wouldn't it be better to resolve the substantive question of the iESG 
first?

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