Carl
>
>> Thanks for the response to my questions. I understand the
>> document stage
>> issue and apologize for getting OGC Member comments into the
>> process so
>> late.
>
> Carl,
>
> sorry if that came out wrong - i fully appreciate that the you took the
> effort of getting the document reviewed in the OGC community, and also
> comiled the comments - it was "just in time" to get the issues below
> into the final document.
>
>> Responses to your questions etc are below.
>
> I've commented on your responses below.
>
>> > For clarification, i could add the single word "depth" to
>> the sentence
>> > cited, so that it reads: "... altitudes below the WGS-84
>> reference geoid
>> > (depths) are signed negative..."
>> >
>> > Would that help?
>>
>> Yes, this would help.
>
> I have now instructed the RFC Editors to modify the sentence as follows:
>
> Coordinates in the Southern and Western hemispheres as well as
> altitudes below the WGS-84 reference geoid (depths) are signed
> negative with a leading dash.
>
>> > - ISO 6709:
>> Perhaps just a note that geo URI can be mapped to 6709 as a
>> recognition of
>> 6709 would remove majority of concerns. FYI - GML incorporates 6709.
>
> I haven't yet instructed the RFC Editors to do so, but given that you
> say it would remove major concerns, i will draft up an (informative)
> note to be included in the final RFC. I will also add an informative
> reference to the ISO standard document.
>
> Alex
>
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
