I think Brian is saying that the XML and DHCP encodings we have in the document are fine as is, and that his Type-As and Type-Bs are encoded exactly the same way. The only difference is that every implementation SHOULD be expected to understand everything in 5139 + any Type-As that find their way into the new registry.
Is this right Brian?
Cheers
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Thomson, Martin
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2011 2:28 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org WG
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] local-civic registry management policy
>
> On 2011-03-09 at 12:42:34, Brian Rosen wrote:
> > I'm not following the "convert" issue. Who is converting what?
>
> You are pulling my leg, right?
>
> Conversion between DHCP and XML formats was crucial in reaching the
> current solution. Without that particular wrinkle, we wouldn't even have
> this draft.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
