Subject: Re: AW: Location Types Registry

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:33:36 -0500

>>>>> "Tschofenig," == Tschofenig, Hannes <[email-masked]> writes:
    Tschofenig,> have you read, for example, the dhcp-civic draft? do
    Tschofenig,> you think it is difficult to understand what the
    Tschofenig,> document does and how the values in the location type
    Tschofenig,> registry are used? it is not uncommon to split one
    Tschofenig,> draft into multiple documents.

Yes, but when you split one document into multiple documents it is
important to write applicability statements, include normative
references or otherwise manage the applicability of your documents.

Several people have raised serious questions about whether the
location registry has too broad of scope.  Your response so far seems
to be that you don't want to limit where the location registry is used
or describe how it is used in the registry document.

That's a fine opinion.  The other side--that your document is too
broad and that different applications will have different needs for a
location registry so you should limit your document's scope until it
makes sense--is also a fine opinion.

And at some level some AD's going to have to decide whether the
objections raised on the IETF list count as a strong enough objection
to block rough consensus within the IETF.

It would be a lot easier if people could find a compromise.  I think
that process starts by trying to understand the concern rather than
simply disagreeing with it.

--Sam

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:30:43 +0100

Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:

> have you read, for example, the dhcp-civic draft?

If that's the draft with snail mail addresses, yes.  I can't
judge it, but it would be okay for all addresses I've ever
heard of.  I vaguely recall that I stumbled over its "postal
code", with all the global deregulations "postal code" could
need a corresponding "postal company" in the future.

For the "location dictionary" you'd need some rules why it's
in fact _no_ dictionary, a limited number of entries could do
the trick.  Something how the "location reviewer" could say
NO to unnecessary new entries.  Obviously that would need a
definition of "necessity":

P: I want "bar", "cafe", "disco".
R: We have "restaurant", we don't need "bar" or "cafe".
P: Okay, give me "disco".

No idea how to manage that.  It's clearer for the proposed
collation registry, "anything you see as collation in an RfC",
same idea for the existing header field registry.  The "URIs"
are almost as bad as the "locations", the most annoying so
far was "info:".  The "charsets" are a rather good example.

Maybe you can copy some ideas from the "lang-subtag" registry:

Jefsey invented interesting "security considerations", stuff
like "what if each device in the world downloads the registry
once per year".  Except from that point (yes, it's obscure at
first glance, but no nonsense) you could simply add pointers:

"Other privacy and security considerations are discussed in
the documents using this registry like [RFC1111], [RFC2222],
and [RFC3333]" for three hypothetical 'clients' of the future
location registry.

Maybe even "have to be discussed".  As it was the draft was
an invitation for a DDoS attack on IANA with bogus locations.

                         Bye, Frank

P.S: geopriv removed from the Cc:, the list bounces articles
     from non-subscribed users