GEOPRIV Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) Usage Clarification, Considerations, and Recommendations
|2015-10-14||14||(System)||Notify list changed from email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org to (None)|
|2009-03-27||14||Cindy Morgan||State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan|
|2009-03-27||14||Cindy Morgan||[Note]: 'RFC 5491' added by Cindy Morgan|
|2009-02-02||14||Cindy Morgan||State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan|
|2009-02-02||14||(System)||IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress|
|2009-02-02||14||(System)||IANA Action state changed to In Progress|
|2009-02-02||14||Amy Vezza||IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent|
|2009-02-02||14||Amy Vezza||IESG has approved the document|
|2009-02-02||14||Amy Vezza||Closed "Approve" ballot|
|2009-01-30||14||(System)||Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-01-29|
|2009-01-29||14||Cindy Morgan||State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan|
|2009-01-29||14||(System)||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by IESG Secretary|
|2009-01-29||14||(System)||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by IESG Secretary|
|2009-01-29||14||David Ward||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward|
|2009-01-29||14||Mark Townsley||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley|
|2009-01-29||14||Jari Arkko||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko|
|2009-01-29||14||Magnus Westerlund||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund|
|2009-01-29||14||Jon Peterson||[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jon Peterson|
|2009-01-28||14||Pasi Eronen||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen|
|2009-01-28||14||Ross Callon||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon|
|2009-01-28||14||Chris Newman||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman|
|2009-01-28||14||Tim Polk||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk|
|2009-01-28||14||Lisa Dusseault||[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault|
|2009-01-27||14||Ron Bonica||[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica|
|2009-01-24||14||Cullen Jennings||Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-01-29 by Cullen Jennings|
|2009-01-24||14||Cullen Jennings||State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings|
|2009-01-24||14||Cullen Jennings||[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings|
|2009-01-24||14||Cullen Jennings||Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings|
|2009-01-24||14||Cullen Jennings||Created "Approve" ballot|
|2009-01-15||14||Samuel Weiler||Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Patrick Cain.|
|2008-12-01||14||Amanda Baber||IANA Comments:
As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
|2008-11-30||14||(System)||State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system|
|2008-11-24||14||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14.txt|
|2008-11-11||14||Samuel Weiler||Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Patrick Cain|
|2008-11-07||14||Amy Vezza||Last call sent|
|2008-11-07||14||Amy Vezza||State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza|
|2008-11-06||14||Cullen Jennings||State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Cullen Jennings|
|2008-11-06||14||Cullen Jennings||Last Call was requested by Cullen Jennings|
|2008-11-06||14||(System)||Ballot writeup text was added|
|2008-11-06||14||(System)||Last call text was added|
|2008-11-06||14||(System)||Ballot approval text was added|
|2008-09-17||14||(System)||Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed|
|2008-09-17||13||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-13.txt|
|2008-09-15||14||Cullen Jennings||State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Cullen Jennings|
Here is some stuff I found reading it - if you think I am off base or confused on any of this, well, you are probably ...
Here is some stuff I found reading it - if you think I am off base or confused on any of this, well, you are probably right so phone me up and tell me the document is fine as is. A bunch of my comments are the same as when were at the EMS workshop.
I'm worried about the statement
It is RECOMMENDED that where uncertainty is included, a confidence of 95% is used.
Imagine that I have a 2d circle and 95% confidence is a radius of 100m and 99.9% confidence is 500m. For privacy reasons I might want to change the radius to 10,000m
I'd like to have the spec worded something more like the recommended is that the regions represent an area that 95% or greater confidence. I'm not sure exactly how to get these words correct but I think you see what I am getting at.
When you say
The edges of a polygon are defined by the shortest path between two points in space (not a geodesic curve).
You mean the points in real space on the earth? this is not really possible without the elevations. I think this needs a bit more clarity. I'll probably agree with whatever you put, It just is a bit vague.
Polygons SHOULD be defined with the upward normal pointing up.
I think this needs to be a MUST or don't bother with it at all a SHOULD will lead to bad bugs
Points specified in a polygon MUST be coplanar a
not exactly sure what this means in the geometries we are interested in
when discussing the GML point, please make it clear if implementation can treat these ad a ieee double or not. I'm basically get at the question about if 34.407 is the same as 34.407000 or not. I don't care about what the answer is, I care about having an RFC that clearly says it one way or the other so we can not argue about it.
#6, clarify what the reference north is for angles in arc band are (i.e. not magnetic)
(same for ellipsoid)
Allowing the prism to have a negative height makes it much harder to have a canonical representation for a prism. This makes it hard to compare and if we ever start signing stuff, harder to get things to canonical form for signing. Do you really want this flexibility? I'm OK with if you say yes, but please think about it. Some implementation will just get this wrong and I don't see what it buys.
Where it says
The shapes defined in [GeoShape] are the recommended shapes to ensure interoperability.
This needs to say the shapes defined in section 5 are the recommended shapes to ensure interoperability. And in
All above-listed shapes are mandatory to implementation
The above-listed shapes are MUST be implement.
where you have
it is recommended that Polygon shapes be restricted to a maximum of 15
this needs some normative language MUST or SHOULD
It's a style thing but the RAI documents mostly use the MUST/SHOULD style instead of RECOMMENDED / SHALL style. It would be better to be consistent on this.
I'm surprised there is not a circular prism shape as many devices end up with this. Trying to use a sphere is hard for some of these because the vertical accuracy is much better than the horizontal.
uh, not at all sure you should do this, but an example that showed how to take what came back from a DHCP response and turned it into some shape defined here would be really useful for implementors
This one is pretty irrelevant to the draft but given there are some IESG folks that care about URNs.
You have some examples like
This is sort of contriversial because no mac URN is defined (other than type 1 uuids). RFC 4478 does have <dm:deviceid>mac:8asd7d7d70</dm:deviceid> but RFC 4480 has <dm:deviceid>urn:x-mac:0003ba4811e3</dm:deviceid> as well as <dm:deviceid>urn:device:0003ba4811e3</dm:deviceid> which is not an not an URN. By RFC 5025 we have
which is at least a valid URN. I'd recommend the last form of device-id.
|2008-09-11||12||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-12.txt|
|2008-02-19||11||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-11.txt|
|2008-01-08||14||Cullen Jennings||[Note]: 'Robert Sparks is proto shepherd.' added by Cullen Jennings|
|2008-01-08||14||Cullen Jennings||State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Cullen Jennings|
(1.a) Robert Sparks is the PROTO document shepherd for this
Robert has personally reviewed this version and
believes it ready for ...
(1.a) Robert Sparks is the PROTO document shepherd for this
Robert has personally reviewed this version and
believes it ready for publication.
(1.b) This document has received significant review inside and
outside the working group.
(1.c) Robert believes this document has had sufficient external
(1.d) There are no IPR disclosures affecting this document.
There is some language left in the document that the
shepherd finds awkward ("upward normal pointing up"), but it's not a
There are no additional concerns to bring to the
attention of the Area Director.
(1.e) The GEOPRIV WG as a whole participated in review of this
document. Consensus is strong and reasonably informed.
(1.f) There has been no significant conflict or discontent over
(1.g) The document survives the online ID nit checker (but the -
civic-lo reference confuses it).
The shepherd has checked the document against those
requirements the tool cannot,
except for validating the XML contents which the
authors checked against Xerces-J 2.9.1.
(1.h) The document is appropriately split into normative and non-
There is one non-IETF normative reference to the
"Candidate OpenGIS Implementation Specification 06-142r1"
There are no downrefs to IETF documents.
(1.i) This document has no IANA considerations and has a section
(1.j) The shepherd has not verified the XML examples validate.
The authors tested all the example in this version against Xerces-J
The Presence Information Data Format Location Object
specification provides a flexible and versatile
means to represent
location information. There are, however,
circumstances that arise
when information needs to be constrained in how it
In these circumstances the range of options that
need to be
implemented are reduced. There is growing interest
in being able to
use location information contained in a PIDF-LO for
applications. To allow successful interoperability
applications, location information needs to be
normative and more
tightly constrained than is currently specified in
the RFC 4119
(PIDF-LO). This document makes recommendations on
how to constrain,
represent and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO. It
recommends a subset of GML that is mandatory to
applications involved in location based routing.
Working Group Summary
This document reflects a strong consensus of the
GEOPRIV working group.
The document was well reviewed within the working
group and received
comment from SIMPLE participants (specifically about
ensuring it took the
presence data model into consideration)
Robert Sparks is the Document Shepherd. Cullen Jennings
is the responsible AD.
The document has no IANA considerations.
|2008-01-04||14||Dinara Suleymanova||Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested|
|2007-10-10||10||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-10.txt|
|2007-10-01||09||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-09.txt|
|2007-07-03||08||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-08.txt|
|2007-04-30||07||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-07.txt|
|2007-03-07||06||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-06.txt|
|2006-10-25||05||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-05.txt|
|2006-05-02||04||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-04.txt|
|2006-03-03||03||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-03.txt|
|2006-02-06||02||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-02.txt|
|2005-07-19||01||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-01.txt|
|2005-07-05||00||(System)||New version available: draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-00.txt|