Re: [Ecrit] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary-04

Yes, I think it will recognize when it left that area.  If it's using civic, then it gets a civic address, and it can check. If it's getting geo locations, it needs a geo boundary.

We don't have any instances of any element needing to geocode or reverse geocode, and I don't want to have any.

Brian

On Nov 23, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> I've requested IETF Last call of this document.
> 
> A question:
> 
> The examples use a civic address boundary (of Lower Austria). Do you expect automata to be able to recognize when they have
> left these regions? (Would a phone be able to turn "Lower Austria" into a polygon so that it would know when it left?). Would it have
> made more sense to have constructed these examples with geospatial regions?
> 
> ----
> Some suggestions:
> 
> Since the introduction is long, it would help to move the main point of the introduction (currently in the last paragraph) to the front of the section.
> 
> On page 4, 2nd to last paragraph, the sentence "Nevertheless, the client does not detect this, because only the mapping of the initially discovered services (police, ambulance, fire) are refreshed." is hard to parse.
> I suggest "Since the client is only required to refresh the mappings for the initially discovered services, the new service is not detected."
> 
> At the top of page 10, the phrase "so no boundary information is reasonable" is ambiguous. Is it trying to say
> "there is no boundary information that is reasonable to send" or "it is reasonable to send no boundary information"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit