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

Henning

I wasn't claiming "mine is better", I was just defending 3825 as suitable, 
when more than one seemed to claim it was not.

I agree we need consensus on what level of precision for each format needs 
to be present to satisfy certain functions (like routing to a PSAP). That 
seems like a meaningful discussion - and hopefully a more peaceful one  ;-)

At 10:22 PM 7/14/2005 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>James M. Polk wrote:
>
>>However, floor names do change, and unless the build falls down, the 
>>number of floors doesn't - so the 3825 definition of the counting of 
>>floors seems the more precise (if that matters here).
>
>I'm not sure what "precise" means here. Also, floors do get added on occasion.
>
>I don't think this is a discussion that is going to get us very far. Some 
>people believe that recipients prefer room locations measured in geo and 
>in fractional floors, others have their doubts as to the practicality of 
>that. Experience will tell and the discussion seems to be of interest only 
>to about 4-5 people.
>
>I'd like to avoid needless complexity for the presumably common case that 
>both exist and would rather avoid the "mine is better" arguments in making 
>decisions on routability. Both need some degree of specificity to be 
>routable, down to house numbers for civic and probably at least 100' 
>anywhere on the globe for geo (whatever that translates to in terms of bits).
>
>Henning

cheers,
James

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

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv