Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Timezones in Civic locations

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:56:27 -0500

Okay, so we have 3 against and 1 for.
Does anybody else care?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 April 2006 12:40 PM
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: GEOPRIV; Thomson, Martin
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Timezones in Civic locations
> 
> And they don't always follow straight lines in the oceans either:
> http://reverie.aaeol.ca/about/timezone.p
> 
> I think what you have just pointed out is that in some places on the
> planet, all there is of a civic location is timezone.
> 
> -andy
> 
> On Apr 4, 2006, at 9:35 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
> > Timezones exist in places without civic locations, such as the open
> > ocean or Antarctica. I don't know how practically significant these
> > are, but at least the usual maps in the back of airline magazines
> > show these...
> >
> >> How is it not civic?  Aren't timezone boundaries determined in
> >> part by political process, much like other parts of civic
locations?
> >> -andy
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> [email-masked]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:06:14 -0400

James,

You have yet to answer my question.

I don't mind if timezone is not included so long as this working  
group has a good reason.  But so far, none has been satisfactory.   
Documents coming from this working group have been heavily  
scrutinized as of late, and should this issue come again during wider  
review there needs to be an answer.

That being said, I am vehemently opposed to the precedent of applying  
PIDF-LO rules to data outside the scope of PIDF-LO elements.  That  
would constitute a substantial change.

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:40:05 -0400

This discussion echoes some of the SIMPLE discussion as to what to 
include in the various enhanced presence documents. In many cases, it 
seemed hard to say no for the specific reason that it would break 
something or not work in some other way, but rather that there is a 
fuzzy line of not making specifications or documents more complex than 
needed, given the almost infinite number of pieces of status-related or 
location-related information that could be included. I guess this is 
somewhat of a slippery-slope argument, where zoning status and mean 
annual temperature are waiting a few steps behind on the ski slope...

I suspect such decisions are by their nature somewhat arbitrary, 
particularly if there is no directly articulated customer demand.

Thus, I think the question cannot be as to why something cannot be 
included, but rather whether this is crucial to the current mission 
scope and why it must be included to satisfy those needs.

For example, the time offset in RPID was included since the core goal of 
presence is to facilitate picking appropriate times and means for 
communications and it was felt that preventing inadvertent phone calls 
at 2am was furthering that goal.

Henning

> I don't mind if timezone is not included so long as this working group 
> has a good reason.  But so far, none has been satisfactory.  Documents 
> coming from this working group have been heavily scrutinized as of late, 
> and should this issue come again during wider review there needs to be 
> an answer.
> 
> PIDF-LO rules to data outside the scope of PIDF-LO elements.  That would 
> constitute a substantial change.
> 
> -andy
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 08:18:44 -0400

Henning, my comments in-line:

> annual temperature are waiting a few steps behind on the ski slope...

I think your examples for the slippery slope are off base.  Zoning 
status and mean annual temperature maybe attributes of locations, but 
they themselves are not locations.  Both a suburb in New Jersey and a 
suburb in Hawaii may be zoned 'Residential' but they are not the same 
location.  Both Montana and North Dakota may have the same mean annual 
temperature, but they are not the same location (despite contemporary 
thoughts to the contrary).

However, if you do have some rule of thumb that could be used to limit 
the bounds of the civic location schema that would be just as good as a 
good argument specifically against timezone (assuming the rule applies 
to timezone).

> scope and why it must be included to satisfy those needs.

We could certainly apply this to other elements for civic location under 
consideration.  I, for one, have no use for POBOX.  A POBOX is not part 
of an address that can be routed to for emergency services, and it is 
likely not the address of a target device such as a mobile phone or 
computer so it is unlikely to be used in presence either.

> at 2am was furthering that goal.

I should note that as this working group spins up work on the l7 
location configuration protocol, that this is exactly an example of an 
application that may very well use the civicLOC schema outside of any 
presence architecture.

-andy