Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:30 AM
> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] My concern with draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-
> 05.txt
>
> Hi all,
>
> after reading RFC 4660 and RFC 4661, which is heavily used by
> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt I had some concerns. RFC 4661 is
> a
> very generic format for event notification filtering and it is good to
> re-use the work that was done there. There is, however, a problem with
> reusing it without putting additional restrictions on its usage, namely
> one
> can accomplish the similar (if not the same) effect using many
> different
> ways (at least the XML documents look different that are sent in the
> SUBSCRIBE body).
>
> To me that sounds a lot like the issues we went through with GML. There
> we
> also wanted to make the life of the implementer easier by restricting
> the
> available options down to an acceptable minimum.
>
> I believe we should do the same with draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters as
> well.
> If we find a way how to accomplish a certain functionality then the
> structure of the XML document is going to be described in detail and
> that's
> the way how it looks like and nothing else is allowed.
>
> Do others share my concerns?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
