ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

2006-01-17 07:11:04
It seems from a quick glance through it that draft-ietf-simple- rpid-08 gives context.

The initial list of locations seems entirely arbitrary, and most of the definitions seem woolly and imprecise. Maybe the arbitrariness is intentional, though, and maybe the quality of definitions doesn't matter. I don't know enough about the goals of the underlying effort to comment.

More precise definitions are always helpful, but I don't think it is necessary to have a complete catalogue of all possible types of locations suitable for an insurance company policy. The goal is that if there's a location, that if two people are asked to pick the closest label, they'll likely agree and they'll likely find something that matches. Clearly, this can be pushed to precision beyond need. For example, I doubt that we need to identify median strips on roads separately.



There are some spelling mistakes. That's about as far as my informed commentary on this draft goes :-)


Joe

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf