Re: [Ecrit] Last Call: draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes (SpecifyingHoles in LoST Service Boundaries) to Proposed Standard

I've updated the draft to -02 to correct these issues.

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-02.txt>

1) As well as changing the ordering, I've added notes to make this behaviour clearer.  It's not always clear just from looking.

2) I've noted that most geospatial software supports interior exclusions, but reiterated the requirements for processing polygons with them.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Winterbottom, James
> Sent: Friday, 26 February 2010 5:30 AM
> To: Avery Penniston; Thomson, Martin
> Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Last Call: draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes
> (SpecifyingHoles in LoST Service Boundaries) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Hi Avery,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> If we have a counterclockwise ring then you are right, this is wrong. I
> will take a look.
> 
> It has been so long since this draft left the WG that I will need to go
> and look at separate table comment. I do recall that when we wrote the
> draft we were asked to provide some guidance as to how the presence or
> holes might be checked for.
> 
> Cheers
> James
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Avery Penniston [apenniston@geo-comm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:19 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James; Thomson, Martin
> Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Last Call: draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes
> (SpecifyingHoles in LoST Service Boundaries) to Proposed Standard
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I had a couple of comments on draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes:
> 
> 1.) In figure 6 and 8 the <gml:interior> ring has its points specified
> in a counterclockwise order, but I think the interior ring's points
> should be ordered clockwise.  I believe it is common practice (and
> perhaps even mandated) that the interior ring's point orientation
> should
> be opposite orientation of the polygon's exterior ring point
> orientation.  Since GML 3.1.1. and the [geoshape] document referenced
> in
> the draft both define a surface's upward normal as counterclockwise
> this
> would make the interior ring's orientation clockwise.
> 
> 2.) The last paragraph on page 12 talks about storing holes as polygons
> in a separate table.  I think this statement may be going a bit far in
> specifying technology specific details.  In general, spatially enabled
> databases support the notion of interior rings and can quickly
> calculate
> polygon intersections, even between polygons that contain holes,
> without
> the need for a secondary check against an exception table for hole
> polygons.
> 
> Avery
> apenniston@geo-comm.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of The IESG
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:16 PM
> > To: IETF-Announce
> > Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Ecrit] Last Call: draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes
> > (SpecifyingHoles in LoST Service Boundaries) to Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Emergency Context Resolution
> > with Internet Technologies WG (ecrit) to consider the following
> > document:
> >
> > - 'Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries '
> >    <draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to
> the
> > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-03-10. Exceptionally,
> > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please
> > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-
> holes-
> > 01.txt
> >
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag
> > =17331&rfc_flag=0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ecrit mailing list
> > Ecrit@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit