|
|
Hi all,
James and Henning have stated their opinion regarding the extension of
location profiles.
It would be good to hear other opinions as well.
Ciao
Hannes
Henning wrote:
That said, I think the complexity of including circles, arc band and
ellipse is minimal. In all cases, the description includes a center
point, which the LoST machinery could easily use to do the actual
lookup. Thus, the additional complexity is mainly parsing these XML
structures, which strikes me as not a big deal.
[AJW] Agreed.
Henning wrote:
What gets complex is if a LoST resolver is forced to map shapes to
multiple branches of the tree, what we have discussed in the past as
the "forking" problem. For example, if a geo shape straddles the
boundary between the US and Canada, you really don't want the LoST
resolver gather results from both trees, decide how long it needs to
wait for one or the other, and other issues. This requires
significantly more protocol work, creates additional error conditions
and increases implementation complexity.
[AJW] Agreed, I am happy for the internals of a LoST server to stay
internal. If people want to opt for complex GIS systems to manage
boundary cases then that is a matter of choice. I would like the option
of passing the geoshape to the LoST server however.
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
|
|