Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: Working Group Last Call: Location Configuration Information for GEOPRIV

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 03 July 2003 11:19 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA06342; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y27B-000836-I6; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 07:19:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Xsro-0000BM-AX for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:26:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA09422 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsrl-0000np-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:26:29 -0400
Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Xsrk-0000nh-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:26:28 -0400
Received: from magnum.cs.columbia.edu (IDENT:root@magnum.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.16.117]) by cs.columbia.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h631QNkM003323; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:26:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (bart.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.19.191]) by magnum.cs.columbia.edu (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h631QLN08055; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 21:26:21 -0400
Message-ID: <3F03854D.2060608@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:22:21 -0400
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: Columbia University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
CC: 'Andrew Daviel' <andrew@daviel.org>, dhcwg@ietf.org, geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: Working Group Last Call: Location Configuration Information for GEOPRIV
References: <000501c340ab$46784be0$220d0d0a@mlinsnerzk7abh>
In-Reply-To: <000501c340ab$46784be0$220d0d0a@mlinsnerzk7abh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Marc Linsner wrote:


> For those who are struggling with this, it is not our intention to
> (re)define zero altitude.  We are simply attempting to provide a
> mechanism for people who understand altitude values to share them
> amongst each other via a standardized mechanism.  If one were to receive
> such data, it is assumed that they will understand the definition of
> zero altitude within the jurisdiction/authority from which the data
> originated.  Some map datum define zero altitude, some don't.  For those
> that don't, we define mean low tide.

Like the datum, what's wrong with providing an indication of the unit of 
the measurement?

I think it is generally a bad idea to assume that all parties along a 
chain of transmission know what the data meant initially. This only adds 
a modest number of bits to the format, given that the number of choices 
appears to be on the order of two.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg