Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile (GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and Recommendations) to Proposed Standard

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:31:39 -0500 (EST)

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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf