Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Mon, 31 October 2016 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EBF12946F for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <eqS22g5wVhUn>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqS22g5wVhUn for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17C312999A for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:08:48 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240600d43d38089373@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR17MB10713730C2A09CD1B0FFC4A9A7D00@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.ou tlook.com>
References: <MWHPR17MB1071230707C1DFC2AA96FE1DA7D00@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.ou tlook.com> <D42AAAA2.F03E6%brian.rosen@neustar.biz> <MWHPR17MB10713730C2A09CD1B0FFC4A9A7D00@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.ou tlook.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:06:18 -0700
To: Dan Banks <DBanks@ddti.net>, "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>, "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/VraQ1fo2tixW7NL2X2hTiecpYxg>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:08:53 -0000

Instead of a boolean, it might be worth considering an integer, to 
inform the client how many similar locations could match.  Depending 
on the situation, the client might report an error and attempt to get 
a less ambiguous location.

At 9:45 PM +0000 10/17/16, Dan Banks wrote:

>  I'm thinking of an example where you might a large apartment 
> building, and a query that did not include unit or floor.  If the 
> response only lists the first 5 units as similar locations, a 
> person looking at this might (incorrectly) assume that the server 
> doesn't have data for the other 13 units in that building.  Of 
> course, there is already a good disclaimer in the draft not to make 
> such assumptions, but the more often we can give the users a 
> complete list of similar locations, the more effective this 
> extension will be.  So, I think an explicit indication will be 
> helpful.  At the very least, it should save a support call or two 
> ("If the LVF knew that unit 501 was valid, then why did it only 
> suggest 101, 103, 201, 202, and 203?")
>
>  Dan
>
>  From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz]
>  Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:24 PM
>  To: Dan Banks; ecrit@ietf.org
>  Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional
>
>  I don't really have a problem with having this option, but one 
> question I have is what would the client do with that information? 
>  I can't think of any behavior change that return of that 
> information would trigger.
>
>  Brian
>
>  From: Dan Banks <<mailto:DBanks@ddti.net>DBanks@ddti.net>
>  Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:18 PM
>  To: "<mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>ecrit@ietf.org" 
> <<mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>ecrit@ietf.org>
>  Cc: Brian Rosen <<mailto:brian.rosen@neustar.biz>brian.rosen@neustar.biz>
>  Subject: draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback - additional
>
>  There is one thing I would like to add to the feedback which I sent 
> recently on the similar location draft:
>
>  Section 4 discusses briefly the possibility of the server limiting 
> the number of returned similar locations.  Although the current 
> text expresses the general idea that there may be a few that are 
> the "most likely" to be the correct location, there are also 
> scenarios where many similar locations could all be equally likely, 
> and the server might need to simply cut off the list at a 
> reasonable count.  In those situations, I believe it would be 
> helpful if the server indicated when such  a limit is actually 
> applied.
>
>  I suggest that an attribute be added to the locationValidation 
> element of the findService response, perhaps 
> rli:similarLocationsLimited, having a data type of boolean, with 
> instructions that a server SHOULD include this attribute if the 
> number of returned similar locations is limited due to 
> configuration or policy.
>
>  Dan Banks
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ecrit mailing list
>  Ecrit@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Don't worry about what people think; they don't do it very often.