Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC on draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:47:05 -0400

All,

Today starts a 2 week working group last call on draft-ietf-geopriv- 
location-types-registry-03.txt.
Please send your comments and/or questions to this mailing list no  
later than 30 August 2005.

-andy

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

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:18:57 -0400

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?

Since these types are all English words, what provision is made for 
other languages?

The abstract and introduction appear to be identical, is this 
acceptable form for an RFC?

On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:
> All,
>
> Today starts a 2 week working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt.

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:27:10 -0400

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

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:52:21 -0400

> trust these kinds of things completely).

The pragmatic (or other) reasons for the registry should be in the 
draft specifying it.

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

The problem including the example is not mine - is is from the IESG.

> Extra text fields aren't a bad idea, but supplemental, not replacement 

It seems this resolution of the IESG DISCUSS comment on the earlier 
draft should be resolved with revision of the types-registry draft 
before WG last call.

> Clearly, that is not the right thing going forward.

This justification should be in the document that seeks the new 
registry.

The following 5 questions deserve individual answers.

> the document?

> In particular, what is the relationship between this and

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:31:34 -0400

On Aug 16, 2005, at 6:18 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:

> Shouldn't the purpose of this location-types-registry be included  
> in the document?

This is a good idea.  Do you have some text you wish to contribute  
that will work for this purpose?

> In particular, what is the relationship between this and the  
> statement in draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-06 that "Thus, this  

I don't know.  Perhaps the answer is none.  But it was my  
understanding that this work came out of the geopriv-radius work.   
The note Hannes sent to the mailing list does a good job of summarizing:
http://ecotroph.net/~anewton/hypermail/geopriv/0411/1323.html

> 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:
> Wouldn't it be better to resolve the substantive question of the  
> iESG first?

Considering there are other applications for this, would do you think  
we ought to do to this draft if this discuss item is not cleared?

> Since these types are all English words, what provision is made for  

I'm betting that Hannes and Henning did not use German words out of  
consideration for the rest of us, though that would have been  
perfectly acceptable as these words are programatically no different  
than numbers and are only textual to help those of us dealing with  
protocols at the octet level.

> acceptable form for an RFC?

I'll have to check the ID nits list, but I believe the repository  
administrator would not accept the draft with its original short and  
succinct one sentence abstract.

-andy