It seems more likely that a decision on discard would be made by the application which has available the full range of information relating to location determination (e.g. local policies, whether other more accurate location values are available, whether manual override has occurred, etc.).
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
It seems like things are likely to be wrong in either case, assuming you're not at a pole. So I don't see any difference between one flavor of wrong and the other, at that level. At least clamping is less likely to cause problems at higher layers.
--Richard
> _______________________________________________
On Jan 19, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Ari Keränen's review (see below) included a comment on issues arising from clamping of
> latitude/longitude values outside the range.
>
> Comments?
> ===========================================
> 2.3. Latitude and Longitude Fields
>
> Latitude values encoded by the DHCP server MUST be constrained to the
> range from -90 to +90 degrees. Location consumers MUST be prepared
> to normalize values outside this range. Values outside the range are
> normalized by clamping [...]
>
> If the values MUST be within those boundaries, doesn't it mean that a
> value that is out of the range is somewhat likely completely wrong (due
> to a broken implementation) and thus it would make sense to ignore it
> rather than try to normalize the value and make it appear as if it was
> valid? I'm not sure if I'd like to be liberal in what I accept when it
> comes to information that could literally be a matter of life and death.
>
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
