Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

Thanks for your comments. I generally agree with your feedback and we'll 
revise the document accordingly.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I oppose approval of this document as-is.
> 
> Four reasons:
> 
> 1) FCFS is inappropriate
> 2) The document gives inadequate context for use
> 3) The document gives inadequate procedures
> 4) The definition of "automobile" is wrong
> 
> Further explanation:
> 
> 1) FCFS: This token registry will have value chiefly when the recipient 
> of such a token has a complete list of tokens available to him, and can 
> perform adequate localization. Thus, value is maximized if the churn of 
> the registry is slow. With FCFS, one risks a number of trends that could 
> jeopardize this (consider registering, in addition to "cafe", 
> "McDonalds", "Wendy's", "Burger King", "Jack-in-the-box", "7-eleven"... 
> or in addition to "school", registering "university", "middle school", 
> "gymnasium", "hochschule", "kindergarten", 
> "vocational-training-institution"....)
> 
> I consider "expert review", with a list of criteria that includes "names 
> a type of place not described by any existing token", to be a more 
> appropriate mechanism.
> 
> If we think unlimited growth is a problem, someone needs to be able to 
> say "no"; if we don't think unlimited growth is a problem, we need to 
> say so.
> 
> 2) Inadequate context for use:
> 
> The document does not make reference to RPID, except in 
> "acknowledgement". Thus, it has to be interpreted as stand-alone, and 
> must contain its own guidance. RPID states:
> 
>   The <place-type> element describes the type of place the person is
>   currently at.  This offers the watcher an indication what kind of
>   communication is likely to be appropriate.
> 
> The XML definiton says:
> 
>     <xs:element name="place-type">
>       <xs:annotation>
>         <xs:documentation>
>           Describes the type of place the person is currently at.
>         </xs:documentation>
>       </xs:annotation>
>       <xs:complexType>
>         <xs:sequence>
>           <xs:element name="note" type="Note_t" minOccurs="0"/>
>           <xs:choice>
>             <xs:element name="aircraft" type="empty" />
> 
> and while I'm not an XML expert, it seems to say that
> <place-type><automobile/><road/></place-type> is a legal construct.
> I don't know if it's possible to say whether or not 
> <place-type><automobile/><road/></place-type> is different from 
> <place-type><road/></automobile></place-type>.
> 
> These things guide the usage of place-types in RPID, but cannot be found 
> from the registry document.
> 
> This document SHOULD give guidance for usage, saying at least:
> 
> - whether it's intended that several of these values can be used together
> - whether it's intended that a sequence of location types gives a 
> progressively more precise set of terms (in which case 
> internationalizing the last type you understand is appropriate) or names 
> an intersection of the classes (in which case you would have to 
> internationalize all of them).
> - whether having a text string alongside it (the "note" above) is a 
> recommended practice.
> 
> It MAY be appropriate to say something about field of use, like RPID 
> does ("what types of communication is appropriate" would lead one to 
> distinguish between "driving a car" and "passenger in a car", while one 
> could imagine that other usages might want to distinguish between 
> "expensive restaurant" and "cheap restaurant").
> 
> 3) Inadequate procedures:
> 
> It's a fact of life that any registry will need updating. This document 
> describes registration, but no updates. It needs to say:
> 
> - Who's authorized to update a registration (FCFS, Expert approval, 
> original registrant, not at all)
> 
> - Guidelines for updates (anything-goes, refinements only, redefinitions 
> with expert approval only)
> 
> - Whether registrations can be deleted or not
> 
> - Whether there is a mechanism for marking entries as "deprecated, use 
> this other term"
> 
> 
> 4) Self explanatory:
> 
>   automobile:
> 
>      The entity is in a railroad car.
> 
> Nit: The terms show signs of having been alphabetized at one time. They 
> are no longer alphabetized - "residence" is in a place in the list that 
> would have been appropriate for "home".
> 
> 
> --On mandag, januar 16, 2006 21:33:45 -0500 The IESG 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG
>> to  consider the following document:
>>
>> - 'Location Types Registry '
>>    <draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-registry-03.txt> as a Proposed
>> Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>> [email protected] or [email protected] mailing lists by 2006-01-30.
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-location-types-reg
>> istry-0 3.txt
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf