[Ecrit] Protocol Action: 'Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries' to Proposed Standard

[The IESG <[e-mail]>]

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Specifying Holes in LoST Service Boundaries '
   <draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard


This document is the product of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-specifying-holes-03.txt

Technical Summary

  The LoST protocol maps location and service identifiers to Uniform
  Resource Identifiers (URIs). LoST may additionally return 
  a so-called service boundary, i.e., a region within which all locations

  map to the same service URI or set of URIs for a given service.
  
  The geodetic boundary is a polygon made up of sets of
  geodetic coordinates specifying an enclosed area. In some
  circumstances an area enclosed by a polygon, also known as an
  exterior polygon, may contain exception areas, or holes, that for the
  same service must yield a different destination to that described by
  the larger area.  
  
  This document describes how holes should be specified in service
boundaries 
  defined using a GML encoding for the polygons and their internal
elements (holes). 


  Working Group Summary

      There is consensus in the WG to publish this document.

  Document Quality

      The document has been reviewed by ECRIT working group members
      and feedback was provided by Carl Reed from the OGC.
      
  Personnel

    Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document.


RFC Editor Note

  Section 1:
  OLD:
    This document describes a profile of Geographic Markup Language (GML)
    [ISO-19107] polygons that constrains their representation when used
    for describing service boundaries.
  NEW:
    This document describes a profile of Geographic Markup Language (GML)
    [ISO-19107] polygons that constrains their representation when used
    for describing service boundaries.  The profile removes a number of
    permutations that are difficult to process.  This allows for
    simplified implementations that are not capable of handling all
    potential variations allowed by GML.  A fully conformant GML 
    implementation must produce polygons that fit this profile to 
    ensure interoperability.