> > Given that there is no statement in RFC 3825 like
> >
> > "If a device does not understand the datum it MUST
> discard the data."
> >
> > It's a heck of a time to try and introduce that ideal now.
>
>It's hard to see what other choice a client might have if it doesn't
>understand the specified datum.
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.
>It's what we've agreed on for Alex's geo URI draft.
yeah Ray, but he isn't writing a bis that adds the concept of
versioning the second time around.
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.
>Given that you were one of the authors of 3825 can you clarify
>whether this was a deliberate omission or just sloppy specification?
wow -- that's quality Monday morning quarterbacking 5 years later.
Do you really want me to go through all your RFCs and point out
everything you missed as "sloppy specification design" on a public
(worldwide) list?
I can - but oh... that's right, you haven't written any RFCs
according to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html
Perhaps you shouldn't make you attacks so personal until you've
written your own RFCs for others to thrash.
James
>Ray
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
