Re: [Geopriv] Radius-Geopriv: Civic vs. geospatial location information

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Hi James,

> Isn't that a configuration choice?
>
> If different docs within Geopriv give a different "default" format to 
> use, this might lead to interoperability issues. This is the basis for 
> my concern and question below. I wasn't picking which made more sense in 
> usage, but wanted ot know if this interoperability issue was thought of.

I very much agree with you that having a different format/rules
can lead to interoperability problems, and that this is something
we should align across all Geopriv protocols and formats.

Regarding the configuration choice: yes, I believe this should
be a configuration choice. However, isn't this dictated to
a large extent by what is mandatory in the format? If geospatial
is mandatory, then presumably you have to have the data to fill
in?

In any case, I don't have a strong feeling about this. I prefer
maintaining consistency over other concerns. But the original
issue was that I could easily imagine that someone who sets up
an access point and its RADIUS might have just the civic information
but would need a special device and a visit to the location to
determine the geospatial location. If you already determined
that this is always going to be a requirement for PIDF-LO,
I'm fine with copying that to RADIUS attributes draft too.

--Jari

> At 08:25 AM 12/14/2004 +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> > I can easily imagine a situation where you have just one
> > part of the information in an easy manner. For instance,
> > a plain old GPS system will only give you geospatial,
> > whereas configuration might just give you just the civil
> > location.
> >
> > --Jari
> >
> > James M. Polk wrote:
> >
> > > Hannes
> > > Don't forget that geospatial is mandatory to implement in PIDF-LO. 
> > > Civic is optional.
> > > I don't know what you want to do about consistency here.
> > > At 10:06 AM 12/13/2004 +0100, Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi all,
> > > >
> > > > currently the document says that civic location information MUST be
> > > > provided. Jari proposed to change the MUST into a SHOULD.
> > > >
> > > > we had a discussion on this issue during the geopriv meeting and i 
> > > > had the
> > > > impression that it is ok to change the MUST into a SHOULD.
> > > >
> > > > ciao
> > > > hannes
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Geopriv mailing list
> > > > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> > >
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > James
> > >                                *******************
> > >                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Geopriv mailing list
> > > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
>
> cheers,
> James
>
>                                *******************
>                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>