Location Types Registry
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
( Ted Hardie ) Yes
( Cullen Jennings ) Yes
( Allison Mankin ) Yes
( Ross Callon ) No Objection
( Brian Carpenter ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2006-03-02 for -06)
Based on Gen-ART review by John Loughney, but backing up David's Discuss. The types are quite soft in nature and not algorithmically precise. The scope for interpretation is wide. This will make both the expert reviewer's task very vague, and operational choices very unclear. "I found many of the location types confusing, for example: water: The person is on water, such as an ocean, lake, river, canal or other waterway. watercraft: The person is traveling in a boat or ship. What about a swimmer or SCUBA diver? What if the boat is not moving, is it still traveling? My gut feeling is that the place needs to be separate from the action. Addtionally, prepositions should be separate from the place (i.e. - on, in, above, under, etc.). In summary - the location places should be just locations, there should be no linkage to the activity of the target with respect to the location."
( Lisa Dusseault ) No Objection
( Bill Fenner ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( Sam Hartman ) No Objection
Comment (2006-02-28 for -)
To my great surprise, I'm a no-objection on this document rather than a discuss or abstain. The authors have done a good job of explaining how the registry might be used in enough detail that protocol designers can determine if this registry is appropriate. Also, the IANA considerations are much improved. Thanks for the great work with last call comments.