Subject: [Ecrit] LoST pre-06 review

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:44:58 +0200

Hi all,

James did a review of the LoST draft. Here is the document he sent to me.
Thank you James.

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:23:10 -0500

I have two further comments that I have been mulling over in my mind.

Section 12.2 and 12.3 refer to the geodetic location profiles.
I am concerned that after having read these a few times they contradict
work that we have done in geopriv. In geopriv we have recommended that
when describing your current location with a polygon that you restrict
the number of vertices to 15 (16 points) to ensure interoperability with
other protocols and to reduce the amount of data transmitted. The
sections I mention above have clear statements that the 16 point
restriction does not apply. While I am happy for the protocol to support
more than 16 points, I think that a recommendation that client locations
be restricted to now more than 16 points would be useful so that it is
consistent with work being done else where.

Please note that this restriction does not apply to service boundaries.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 July 2007 5:45 PM
> To: ECRIT
> Cc: Winterbottom, James
> Subject: LoST pre-06 review
> 
> Hi all,
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:33:31 -0400

I see no reason to restrict LoST clients to 16 points or to mention  
that clients (may) have this restriction. This is likely to be  
counterproductive, as this may yield LoST implementations that are  
not tested for larger polygons, even though they may occur. LoST  
makes no such assumptions, so it is not appropriate to document them  
in the LoST document. Thus, I'm opposed to such a change.

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:30:30 -0500

Henning,

I guess we are at odds then.
I am suggesting that it be made as a recommendation, not a must.
I see little reason for a Device describing my location to use a polygon
with more than 15 vertices. Most mechanisms that measure location can't
provide a polygon anyway, so it will more than likely need to be
provided manually or datafilled somewhere. I want consistency and
interoperability, something that the proposed recommendation would
promote.

Cheers
James

> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, 5 July 2007 10:34 AM
> To: Winterbottom, James
> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] RE: LoST pre-06 review
>