Last Call: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile (GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and Recommendations) to Proposed Standard
creed@opengeospatial.org Mon, 10 November 2008 18:00 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 [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F303A6A53; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:00:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B4E3A694C for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:31:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74yJLWYTdiSC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:31:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (mail.opengeospatial.org [208.44.53.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B6928C11E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.opengeospatial.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.opengeospatial.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id mA7GVbmh021538 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:31:39 -0500
Received: from 75.71.192.203 (SquirrelMail authenticated user creed) by mail.opengeospatial.org with HTTP; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:31:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <59254.75.71.192.203.1226075499.squirrel@mail.opengeospatial.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:31:39 -0500
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile (GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and Recommendations) to Proposed Standard
From: creed@opengeospatial.org
To: ietf@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/8588/Fri Nov 7 10:05:35 2008 on mail.opengeospatial.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:00:56 -0800
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-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
To whom it may concern. Please consider the following recommended changes to the document. I am not sure of how to provide comments as I have not provided official comments to an internet proposed standard before - I have always done so much earlier in the process. In general, an excellent easy to read and understand document. Thanks Carl Reed, PhD CTO Open Geospatial Consortium ======================= In the abstract change: <It further recommends a subset of GML that is mandatory to implement by applications involved in location based routing.> To <This further recommends a subset of the OGC(r) Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1 that is mandatory to implement by applications involved in location based routing.> Reason: Many readers may not know what the GML TLA means. Further, there are several versions of GML and it is there fore important to refer to the correct version. Finally, there should be a normative reference to the appropriate GML document. The reference would be: [OGC GML 3.1.1] Portele, C., Cox, S., Daisy, P.,Lake, R., Whiteside, A. Geography Markup Language (GML) 3.1.1. July 2003. http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=4700 ------------------------ In the introduction change: GMLv3 to GMLv3.1.1 ------------------------ In the introduction second paragraph Target is not defined. ------------------------ In Using Location Information section 3 The use of the word "chunks". Never seen this is any standard before :-) Anyway, perhaps a few words on exactly what is meant by a chunk, such as "A chunk is a discrete location element". -------------------------- 3.1. Single Civic Location Information Suggest also providing an example XML snippet showing how the civic location is encoded. -------------------------- Section 5, bottom of page 14 there is a reference to an OGC URN. URN urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::4326. I would suggest that two references be stated. [RFC 5165] Reed, C. A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). April 2008 [OGC CRS URN Usage] Whiteside, A. GML 3.1.1 Common CRSs Profile. November 2005. http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=13204 Reason: Background information and guidance on the use and resolution of OGC URNs. ------------------------ Section 5.1 bottom of page 15 - dimensioanl - misspelling. Also, this is just a thought for future work - a maximum of 15 points is very restrictive in terms of the geospatial and location services domain. So, is good that the document states "SHOULD" on this restriction. ----------------------- Section 5.2 point: Suggest changing: geodetic LI to geodetic location information (LI) as this is the first use of LI. ----------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf