Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com> Wed, 21 May 2008 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [] (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8113A685A; Wed, 21 May 2008 10:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A923F3A6826 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2008 10:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r5oFaAS9xMgk for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2008 10:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831613A67A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2008 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost []) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56556C18; Wed, 21 May 2008 13:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [] (ip68-107-60-165.sd.sd.cox.net []) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA27A6C15; Wed, 21 May 2008 13:32:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:32:09 -0700
From: Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <1265635667.20080521103209@pobox.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-mayrhofer-geopriv-geo-uri-00
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DA299C76-275B-11DD-81A8-80001473D85F-02871704!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com
Cc: Christian Spanring <spanring@oir.at>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

While reading through this ID: A Uniform Resource Identifier for Geographic
Locations ('geo' URI), I found several minor issues.

Section 2. Introduction
   [use of WGS84 reference system]

I wonder if it might be more forward thinking to allow for the optional
specification of the reference system being used. Perhaps this could be one
of the "URI parameters" mentioned in section 4.7

Section 4.4.1 Component Description
   The number of decimal places indicates the precision of the value.
   One degree equals 111.319,45m at the equator (40.075,004km / 360
   degree).  Five decimal places (0.00001 degree) seem to imply a for
   civil use sufficient accuracy.

To my American eye the decimal notation (partially) used here was jaring.
Searching (briefly) for some sort of presentation standard in an RFC or
other technical document was unsuccessful. Is the use of "." and ","
standardized in the representation of real numbers in RFCs?

Section 6. GML Mappings

There seems to be no explanation of what GML is, not even a Reference

Section 9.1.  Invalid Locations

Is there a recommended way to represent the poles? Dare I suggest <geo:90>
and <geo:-90>? If that is too much of a special case, should the longitude
always be zero or can it be anything between -180.00000 and 180.00000?

Section 9.2.  Location Privcay

Typo: .................Privacy

Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>

IETF mailing list