>#8: Altitude type of 0 == no altitude
>---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> Reporter: martin.thomson@andrew.com | Owner:
> martin.thomson@andrew.com
> Type: defect | Status: new
>
> Priority: major | Milestone:
>
>Component: rfc3825bis | Version:
>
> Severity: - | Resolution:
>
> Keywords: altitude |
>---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
>
>Comment(by bernard_aboba@hotmail.com):
>
> Here is the text from draft-thomson-geopriv-3825bis-03:
>
> 2.4.1. No Known Altitude (AT = 0)
>
> In some cases, the altitude of the location might not be known. An
> altitude type of 0 indicates that the altitude is not known. In this
> case, the altitude and altitude uncertainty fields can contain any
> value and are ignored.
>
> Is this text a satisfactory resolution to the issue?
This doesn't satisfy the basic need to be able to provide location in
2D, where altitude simply isn't given (either because it is not known
or it doesn't matter to the location provider (i.e., the sighter
(dare I use that word :-) or measuring equipment result such as a
wiremap database).
A lot of times (like probably 90% of the time), location in 2D is
satisfactory. From the client's point of view, it will not learn the
location, but that doesn't necessarily mean the location isn't known
to the server (and it didn't provide it for whatever reason).
I suggest this subtle rephrasing of section 2.4.1:
2.4.1. Altitude Not Provided (AT = 0)
In some cases, the altitude of the location might not be provided. An
altitude type of 0 indicates that the altitude is not given to the client.
In this case, the altitude and altitude uncertainty fields can contain any
value and MUST be ignored.
this last 'MUST' is so that implementations do not use the fields
unless they want to be considered 'out of compliance', which may be
fine with proprietary (augmented) implementations - but it does
remove any doubt about how the client is to interpret the 2 fields
according to this spec.
James
>--
>Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/8#comment:2>
>geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
