John Schnizlein wrote:
>
> Why you would claim not to have been in the discussions?
At this point, I will put my chair hat on and say that there is no need to
go down this particular dark alley.
So far, I am only hearing one person claiming that 3825 is inadequate and
many other voices suggesting that it merely needs clarification. Certainly,
3825 would not be the first RFC in IETF history needing clarification.
As part of any clarification effort, I think the community would be well
served to have 3825 to GML conversion examples. Not having fully digested
the requisite amount of morning coffee, I cannot easily judge if GML can
express uncertainty about a point. That would "certainly" be helpful.
And as Henning has suggested, we would also be well served by documented and
agreed upon definitions of these terms.
-andy
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:42:38 -0400
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 11 2006 - 10:58:42 EDT