Richard offered his opinion that the current charter did not cover
extraterrestrial coordinates. While anyone can write an Internet Draft on
any subject, and RFCs can be created without going through a work group,
Richard's opinion, if interpreted the same way by the ADs, would prohibit
this working group from considering non-earth coordinates unless and until
the charter was changed.
>> I'm pretty sure that extraterrestrial coordinates are outside
>> the scope of this WG. Those who are interested should feel
>> free to propose a charter update in the future.
The +1 part of that message is irrelevant.
Scope creep is an insidious thing. It does seem really simple to expand to
extraterrestrial coordinates. It's probably not in our charter to do so.
Brian
On 9/7/09 6:21 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D4665088A08C8@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at>,
> Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at> writes
>
>>>> I second that. Plus, i believe our esteemed chairs have
>>>> declared that
>>>> out of scope long time ago.
>>>
>>> Cite, please?
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07282.html
>
>
> That's Richard Barnes saying:
>
> In message <4A267AA7.4070703@bbn.com>, Richard Barnes
> <rbarnes@bbn.com> writes
>
>> +1
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that extraterrestrial coordinates are outside
>> the scope of this WG. Those who are interested should feel
>> free to propose a charter update in the future.
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07282.html>
>
> His "+1" was to the suggestion:
>
> In message <4A266A77.9000506@danbri.org>, Dan Brickley
> <danbri@danbri.org> writes
>
>> Could an escape code or sub-namespace be left in the geo: spec,
>> such that future revisions could be made without needing to
>> move to a new URI scheme?
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07280.html>
>
>
> and today he says:
>
> In message <4AA41843.30406@bbn.com>, Richard Barnes
> <rbarnes@bbn.com> writes
>
>> If you would like to define GEO URIs for any CRS other than
>> GS84 (whether terrestrial or not), the appropriate action at
>> his point is to write a Internet-draft defining a new CRS
>> parameter value for the current URI scheme. You are welcome to
>> write such a document, and propose it to the working group if
>> you so desire.
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07817.html>
>
> I also note that the former thread leaves several questions unanswered;
> but providing the latter pertains (and is made clear), then I'm happy.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
