3825 can actually only represent uncertainty to the extent that it can
be conveyed by precision. This makes it unsuitable for the sort of
arbitrary uncertainty around arbitrary location values you refer to.
Cheers,
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 10:59 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: Brian Rosen; 'GEOPRIV WG'; Dawson, Martin; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
'Allison
Mankin'; 'John Schnizlein'
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group
Hums
On 2007-04-20 09:21, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
DHCP is not a great choice in a mobile environment and also not when
it
comes to more complex location representations.
Why can't a mobile system have a locally valid DHCP record (+/- the
length
of a wireless link)? For that matter, why couldn't a DHCP server have
real-time triangulation data, if it exists at all?
Do you mean more complex than can be expressed by RFC 4776 and RFC 3825
together?
Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf