>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?
I agree with you. These RFCs are written from the point of view of a
WG member having spent a lot of time in the WG monitoring or actively
participating in the discussions about these efforts.
Each are hard to get your head around the totality of what is in or
out of scope of these docs, and the examples are poor IMO - providing
very little help.
James
>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
