Subject: Re: Civil-02 ID and PIDF-LO inconsistencies

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:42:12 -0400

James M. Polk wrote:

> I agree it is related.  Perhaps the pidf-lo document should only 
> reference the civil doc for the chart? In other words, have the civil ID 
> be the creator of the chart, and not have it in both documents (fearing 
> inconsistency), but have the pidf-lo document reference *to* the chart 
> in the civil doc.
> 
> I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to 
> catch this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is 
> time to address it now.

Given that both need to define different tags (XML element names in one 
case, numeric tags in the other), I think such reference would be 
difficult, even leaving timing issues aside. I think we can handle the 
synchronization of the documents - the list of elements is small.

Henning

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:36:50 -0500

At 10:13 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>James M. Polk wrote:
>
>>In reviewing the pidf-lo-02 and the civil-02 IDs, I have discovered minor 
>>inconsistencies.
>
>Please note that the labels in the column 'NENA' refer to the NENA 02-010 
>data element labels. Neither FLR or PC are used there, as far as I can 
>tell. FLR is not defined there at all and PC is called ZIP.

hmmmm - inconsistencies should be avoided if known (therefore - see below)

>I've added a separate column to the civil-02 table, labeled PIDF, to make 
>the correspondence explicit.

this is good for the civil ID, but doesn't address what the pidf-lo ID is 
stating (which you shouldn't be solving)

>>I believe the two charts should be consistent to each other, with the 
>>civil-02 ID being the one that's less complete, it should have the 
>>appropriate text added.
>
>They definitely should be. A separate, but related issue, is whether the 
>language information contained in the civil-02 draft should also appear in 
>PIDF-LO.

I agree it is related.  Perhaps the pidf-lo document should only reference 
the civil doc for the chart? In other words, have the civil ID be the 
creator of the chart, and not have it in both documents (fearing 
inconsistency), but have the pidf-lo document reference *to* the chart in 
the civil doc.

I know this is not necessarily optimal, but this is the last week to catch 
this before IETF LC in the pidf-lo doc is completed, so there is time to 
address it now.

>>cheers,
>>James
>>                                *******************
>>                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
>

cheers,
James

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:48:29 -0500

At 10:42 PM 7/10/2004 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>case, numeric tags in the other), I think such reference would be difficult,

but they both have a way too similar chart that doesn't match - 
implementors down the road might not see the subtle differences and we end 
up with another Mars Probe crashing into the planet because one set of 
engineers used km and the other used miles and both groups were happy until 
there were flames and smoke

Not being consistent MUST lead to ignoring of fields in the IETF... this is 
not good unless (see below)

>even leaving timing issues aside. I think we can handle the 
>synchronization of the documents

this means the civil doc needs to change to exactly what the pidf-lo doc 
has (as the synchronization is up to the most mobile doc - and that's the 
civil doc near WGLC, but far from IETF LC)

>- the list of elements is small.

agreed they are in the details side of addressing, but if someone sending a 
message was coded to the civil doc and includes BLDG, and the recipient's 
device was coded to the pidf-lo doc without such a reference, the BLDG 
value must be ignored by the recipient.

Maybe this is the lone identifier on the Columbia Univ campus ("The Law 
School"). Leaving everything else consistent, a responder is going to go to 
a campus address and have the floor and room number, but not which building 
the caller was in. That might mean less lawyers that year...

This I think presents a problem.

cheers,
James

                                *******************