Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-Based Location Configuration Information
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
( Robert Sparks ) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
Jari Arkko (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
Comment (2010-12-02 for -17)
Ari Keränen reviewed this specification and he had a few comments: The abstract should state that this document obsoletes RFC 3825 and the intro should explain why it's done (as described in the I-D checklist). However, instead of obsoleting 3825, wouldn't it make more sense to have a new IPv4 DHCP option for this new version given that the new encoding is not compatible with the old one and re-using the same value seems to cause a lot of problems (as described in section 2.2.1)? Or otherwise it would be good idea to mention the reason (preserving DHCP codes?) for not doing so. 2.3. Latitude and Longitude Fields Latitude values encoded by the DHCP server MUST be constrained to the range from -90 to +90 degrees. Location consumers MUST be prepared to normalize values outside this range. Values outside the range are normalized by clamping [...] If the values MUST be within those boundaries, doesn't it mean that a value that is out of the range is somewhat likely completely wrong (due to a broken implementation) and thus it would make sense to ignore it rather than try to normalize the value and make it appear as if it was valid? I'm not sure if I'd like to be liberal in what I accept when it comes to information that could literally be a matter of life and death.
( Ron Bonica ) No Objection
( Stewart Bryant ) No Objection
Comment (2010-12-01 for -)
PIFF-LO term used but not defined GML term used but not defined Code: GEOCONF_GEODETIC (16 bits). is "Option Code" in the fig above. AType: Altitude Type (4 bits). would be clearer with a ref to section 2.4 (appears in two places)
( Gonzalo Camarillo ) No Objection
( Ralph Droms ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2011-02-04 for -)
I've cleared my DISCUSS. I have a remaining minor comment - In the descriptions of the options, sentences like: When the Ver field = 1, this field represents latitude uncertainty. The contents of this field is undefined for other values of the Ver field. seem unnecessarily detailed. Why not simply: This field represents latitude uncertainty. The descriptions of many fields say nothing about the version number.
( Adrian Farrel ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( David Harrington ) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2010-11-30 for -17)
1) section 1, paragraph 4 says "The DHCP server could correlate the Circuit-ID with the geographic location where the identified circuit terminates (such as the location of the wall jack)." Would it be the job of the DHCP server to do this correlation? I would assume it was a NM application function to do such correlation. 2) In 18.104.22.168, s/same response. This is not useful since/same response, since/