Re: [Geopriv] Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 15:56:21 -0500 Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> That's again an RPID issue. Not every protocol using these tokens will >>> have notes. >> >> There's no second protocol at the moment, so you have the chance to >> provide guidance... > > Yes: AAA > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt) Right - the wording there is an argument in favour of centralizing guidance (it has none)..... >> Legal wording isn't what I'm looking for. Hints to the reviewer about >> what the WG considers "common sense" would be helpful. > > To better understand what you have in mind, can you give an example? > There are some obvious things, like: > > - not specific to a country > - not a specific company or organization > - well-defined > - widely recognized That's good guidelines for a reviewer. It would allow him to reject both "McDonalds" (company) and "Lavvo" (Sami tent, not widely recognized), but would probably accept "open ocean" and "river" (if it was used in a context about where a boat is, these might make sense). I'd say "not specific to a country or language". Go for it. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf