[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: SLoP Requirements I-D, Draft 3
Amen!
At 10:13 AM 7/11/2000 -0700, Rohan Mahy wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'd like to make clear the distinction between the *protocol*
requirements
>and the *implementation* requirements. It is the intent of
the design
>team, that the *protocol* MUST support handling multiple
formats. In other
>words, any proposed protocol, must be able to carry new
formats. It is
>also the intent of the design team, that any proposal for the
SLoP protocol
>REQUIRE all implementations to support a fairly simple format
with at least
>lat,long,alt, time, and accuracy. Those same proposals
will almost
>undoubtedly say that implmentations MAY use other IANA
registered formats.
>
>Hope this clears things up.
>
>thanks,
>-rohan
>
>
>
>
>At 04:16 AM 7/11/00 , haitao.tang@nokia.com wrote:
>>Hi Brian and Rohan,
>>
>>On Patrik's comment, I guess we mean one "MUST"
(default) and some "MAY"s
>>(options) in the req I-D, concerning location data format.
Maybe, he
>>misunderstood it. So, Brian may clarify this to the
list.
>>
>>Concerning time, maybe, he was talking about Rohan's simple
text format I-D.
>>"this protocol express at what lat and long mr Columbus
were in 1492 at a
>>specific date" is a good point, isn't it? Can Rohan
comment to the list?
>>
>>BR, Haitao
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > Sent: 11 July, 2000 9:45
>> > To: john.loughney@nokia.com;
Brian.Rosen@marconi.com;
>> > ext-ip-location@research.nokia.com
>> > Subject: RE: SLoP Requirements I-D, Draft 3
>> >
>> >
>> > At 08.32 +0300 00-07-11, john.loughney@nokia.com
wrote:
>> > >comment 4
>> > >=========
>> > >
>> > > The protocol:
>> > >
>> > > a. MUST support multiple
formats. Each format must be registered
>> > > with
IANA.
>> > >
>> > >=> I think it MUST support the default format,
and MAY support other
>> > > formats.
>> >
>> > I am still very confused about this wish which people
have about
>> > having "multiple formats in the
protocol".
>> >
>> > Are we not mixing up user interface issues with what
is in
>> > the protocol?
>> >
>> > I suggested a bit earlier that the time specification
in the protocol
>> > should be a real number which is:
>> >
>> > > A time is expressed
as a Julian date, a Floating point number
>> > > of arbitrary
accuracy denoting the number of days
>> > before (negative),
>> > > or after (positive)
the 14th of September 1752.
>> >
>> > The reason I define time this way and not as UTC, GMT
or such, is
>> > that for example UTC is not defined before around
1970.
>> >
>> > I.e. if you use UTC, GMT or such definitions, it might
become
>> > troublesome to express non-present times. For example,
it could be
>> > difficult to in this protocol express at what lat and
long mr
>> > Columbus were in 1492 at a specific date.
>> >
>> > Patrik
>> >
>
*************************************
"At the end of the day... the most committed win!"
James M. Polk
Sr. Product Manager, Multiservice Architecture and Standards
Enterprise Voice Business Unit
Cisco Systems
Dallas, Texas
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com