Subject: [Geopriv] pdif-lo-08: quick comments

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:13:21 -0400

Two quick comments:

- The terminology section uses "compound location" and _source_. Does  
the " mean something different from the _?

- More substantively, I noticed that the document now refers to the  
SIMPLE data model (RFC 4479), but omits a crucial issue, namely  
whether location information can and should appear in <person> and  
<device> elements. I believe this makes sense, probably more so than  
including it in the 'service' (<tuple>) element, as is implied by the  
document.

Fig. 1 should be amended accordingly.

Henning

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

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:50:54 +0200

Hi Henning,

thanks for your review comments.

> the " mean something different from the _?
We should be using only "" rather than __.

> including it in the 'service' (<tuple>) element, as is implied by the 
My reading of RFC 4119 is that you are only allowed to put the location 
object as a child element of the <status> element.
Hence, location information cannot appear as a child element of <person> 
or <device>

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:16:18 -0400

> My reading of RFC 4119 is that you are only allowed to put the  
> location object as a child element of the <status> element.
> Hence, location information cannot appear as a child element of  
> <person> or <device>

Obviously, RFC 4119 didn't know anything about RFC 4479, so I'm  
curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion. Certainly, during  
the discussion for 4479, we repeatedly discussed location information  
for persons and devices.

Henning