[dhcwg] Unit of Measurement...?

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Wed, 09 July 2003 05:18 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 BAA22509; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a7L7-0005mP-CR; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:18:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19a7K9-0005lx-LA for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:17:01 -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 BAA22478 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2003 01:16:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a7K6-0003cZ-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:16:58 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19a7K6-0003cV-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:16:58 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2003 22:19:16 -0700
Received: from wells.cisco.com (wells.cisco.com [171.71.177.223]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h695GQMr011446; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jmpolk-w2k01.diablo.cisco.com (ssh-sjc-1.cisco.com [171.68.225.134]) by wells.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id WAA26902; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030708235923.053d2718@localhost>
X-Sender: jmpolk@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:13:21 -0500
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Cc: 'Andrew Daviel' <andrew@daviel.org>, dhcwg@ietf.org, geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3F03854D.2060608@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <000501c340ab$46784be0$220d0d0a@mlinsnerzk7abh> <000501c340ab$46784be0$220d0d0a@mlinsnerzk7abh>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [dhcwg] Unit of Measurement...?
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>

At 09:22 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>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?

OK.... so I'm having a bad day and (perhaps) as a result of this, I don't 
understand what (which?) "unit of the measurement" you are referring to...

It seems to be in relation to Altitude - which we have a unit of 
measurement included already (meters and floors). Do you want additional 
ones defined?

We state that if the datum doesn't define a "0" altitude, we define it as 
"mean low tide". Does this not cover that angle? This seems pointless when 
the altitude is measured in floors, but I could be wrong.

I'm not frustrated, I just don't know what you are referring to here (that 
Carl agrees to)

I need a vacation..... :-/


>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


cheers,
James

                                *******************
                    The answer is "42", what's the question?


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