Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Heinz Wolf [mailto:khwolf1@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:46 AM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] draft-rosen-geopriv-pidf-interior
>
> Brian,
>
> one question on section 7.2 CAtype Registry Update. If you add CAType
> 40 for INT, how do you want to use this CAType, lets say, in DHCP?
> There are just values, and no attributes.
>
> PIDF-LO: <INT N='Room' R='A'>Westerns and Classics</INT>
>
> DHCP: CAtype: 40, Value: Westerns and Classics
> where should 'Room' go?
>
> Do you have a thought on this?
>
> cheers
> karl heinz
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Rosen,
Brian<Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
> wrote:
> > I would appreciate some comments on this draft:
> > a) Does it makes sense to you to do it this way instead of how we
> > currently support "interior" location?
> > b) Do the specifics look right (basically, it's an ordered list of
> > name/value pairs with no registry and a flag that suggests how to
> pretty
> > print the result)
> > c) Should we deprecate the existing mechanism in favor of this, or
> just
> > let the old one lie there?
> >
> > Several groups that tried to do interior addressing ran into the
kind
> of
> > problems the existing mechanism couldn't handle and went for the
open
> > ended name/value pair idea.
> >
> > Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
