RE: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-l o -profile-00

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

At 11:17 AM 7/15/2005 +1000, James Winterbottom wrote:

>I think that the problem is more complex than this.
>
>The Geo with floor does provide a relatively precise location. Certainly 
>it can be precise enough to enable routing decisions to be made. Civic, as 
>is defined in the PIDF-LO document I am afraid does not. All elements are 
>defined as 0-1 occurrences, which means that an operator can pick and 
>choose what ever elements they want to include. We need to provide 
>recommendations on a minimum set of civic elements that are required to be 
>entered I think.

I wholeheatedly agree with this assessment


>Anyway, given this limitation I am going to propose the following:

I want to ponder this below

>
>
>1) If you request AT THE SAME TIME, Geo and Civic, and you get both, you:
>         a) Create a Single tuple, status, GeoPriv and Location-info element.
>       b) You fill in everything you can with the Geo information first, 
> so Geo will be the first entry in the location-info element. If floor was 
> provided then you create a civic element and fill in the floor.
>
>       c) You take everything except for floor from the returned civic 
> information and populate that into the same civic element that was 
> created to put the floor info into.
>
>RATIONALE:- Civic data returned may not be sufficient to provide routing 
>information, but may be extremely useful to people that need to look at 
>the location.
>
>2) If you request different location types at different times then the 
>locations must be populated into different tuples.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henning Schulzrinne 
>[<mailto:[e-mail]>mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, 15 July 2005 10:47 AM
>To: James M. Polk
>Cc: Winterbottom, James [WOLL:5500:EXCH]; Marc Linsner; 'GEOPRIV'
>Subject: Re: AW: [Geopriv] Quickrandomcommentsondraft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo 
>-profile-00
>
>Since I'm not sure I understand the question and since partial answers
>may confuse more than help, let me try to explain what I see as the
>process and issues systematically.
>
>The DHCP client wants to get location information and then PUBLISH this
>information via PIDF-LO.
>
>I assume that the DHCP client has no out-of-band knowledge what location
>information, if any, is available locally.
>
>Let's assume that the DHCP client hasn't participated in the 35 geo vs.
>civic discussions on this list and just wants to get all the location
>information it can lay its virtual hands on. I know it's bad form these
>days to be an agnostic, but maybe we can tolerate it in protocols.
>
>The most expedient way is to request both civic and geo options in one
>DHCP request, requesting them by their respective DHCP option numbers.
>
>Let's assume both are available and are returned. (If just one, there's
>no problem except that you'll possibly generate an incomplete civic record.)
>
>The question at hand is what the PIDF should look like, with its 1, 2 or
>3 location objects. (One: combined civic+geo, Two: one each, Three: one
>civic from the geo object, plus the full civic plus the geo object). It
>sure would be nice if we can give an answer which is something other
>than "maybe 1, maybe 2, maybe 3, depending on the weather".
>
>Henning


cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv