Location Types Registry
RFC 4589

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 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)
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


      The person is on water, such as an ocean, lake, river, canal or
      other waterway.


      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

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(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.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection