-The consensus after the virtual interim was the following (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07207.html
):
The bis should provide guidance about what clients should do when they
receive a datum they do not understand. For example, the document
could recommend ignoring the bits that are not understood.
-Here's the thread from the last time we discussed this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07090.html
Alissa
On Jul 29, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk wrote:
>
> > no, it actually isn't. We assume it's WGS84 - as it's the most
> common
> > CRS and the one everyone is moving towards, that's the safest way
> > forward considering what I say next.
>
> Unfortunately 3825 doesn't say that either.
>
> If that *is* the way forward, that would mitigate the effect of the
> version flags, although one would hope that a trivial "datum = value
> & 0x07" will make that unnecessary on future client implementations.
>
> > yeah Ray, but he isn't writing a bis that adds the concept of
> > versioning the second time around.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > If this were (time-machine alert) 2004, then this should have been
> > written into 3825. I agree. But it's not 2004 -- and we shouldn't
> > knowingly reduce the number of clients that get location they will
> > keep without having the ability to inform anyone/thing there's a
> > problem. Not when it affects emergency calling, which we all know
> > your stance will affect it adversely.
>
> My stance is based on an (implicit) understanding that clients would
> already suffer this problem if a new datum were introduced in future
> revisions of 3825.
>
> > wow -- that's quality Monday morning quarterbacking 5 years later.
>
> I apologise, that was poorly worded.
>
> > Perhaps you shouldn't make you attacks so personal until you've
> > written your own RFCs for others to thrash.
>
> The first one is in the queue and due for publication September.
>
> Ray
> _______________________________________________
> 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
