Subject: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch: Discuss by Cullen

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:12:08 +0300

https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch/com
ment/77955/

-----------------

Commented by:	Cullen Jennings	
Comment:	These are two pretty easy to fix issues: 

We need to have this document in sync with LOST about what shapes are
allowed in a location. Right now Lost seems to allow Point, Polygon,
Circle, Ellipse, ArcBand. 

  Coverage regions are described by sets of polygons enclosing 
  contiguous geographic areas or by descriptors enumerating groups of 
  civic locations.  For the former, the LoST server performs a point- 
  in-polygon operation to find the polygon that contains the query 
  point.  (More complicated geometric matching algorithms may be added 
  in the future.) 

The forest guides need to decide which coverage region the query is in.
I think the FG need to use the same algorithm that the LOST servers use
or it is possible to miss the correct tree.	
 
-----------------

I believe that the issue with this comment is the following: 
LoST allows arbitrary service boundaries to be returned. However, the
location of the Target is described via (currently) two location
profiles that express location in the shapes listed above. 
As such, there is no need for alignment between the two but one could
clarify this relationship in the document. 

We had a discussion about the mapping algorithm in the LoST document.
The description in Section 12.2 of LoST is relevant in this context.
Maybe a pointer to that section would be appropriate. 

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit