<James.Winterbottom@andrew.com> wrote:
>
>
> The one technical argument concerning protocols not providing support to indicate what namespaces they understand has been shown to be incorrect. All other arguments have boiled down to a lack of understanding of element scoping within XML.
>
> Interoperability within jurisdictions is assured for any device if it follows basic XML rules, which it should already be following given the current specifications anyway.
>
> All that I see in the arguments provided is a desire to have the IETF control what other organizations can do,
>
For what it is worth, that's not something I see in the discussion to
date at all. The interoperability you achieve
with the xml namespace-based proposal without a registry is whatever
was initially standardized. Each subsequent
jurisdiction that wants to add functionality does so independently. I
agree with Brian that this is likely to mean that
un-reviewed later additions will overlap (but likely not perfectly).
Since the sender doesn't know what the
receiver supports, the sender can't fix it by mapping to namespaces
that the receiver *does* understand. That means
the end device that doesn't understand "mile-post" but would have
understood "milepost" can send it along,
but can't actually use the data.
I think having a registry here helps by identifying what has already
been covered and fosters interoperability.
Having a reviewer helps further, but making a first-come first-served
registry to help folks identify what
has already been done. I really don't seen how that level of support
from the IETF could be considered
control.
My two cents,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
