1 / 6

DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch- 03

DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch- 03. Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University hgs@cs.columbia.edu. Regions.

elie
Télécharger la présentation

DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch- 03

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-03 Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University hgs@cs.columbia.edu ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin)

  2. Regions • My understanding is the queries supported here need to match the queries possible in LOST. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Right now this document does not allow the Polygon, Circle, Ellipse, ArcBand that are allowed in Lost. • Synchronization problem; fixed. ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin)

  3. Coverage regions • We need to have this document in sync with LOST about what shapes are allowed in a location. Right now Lost seems to allow Point, Polygon, Circle, Ellipse, ArcBand.   Coverage regions are described by sets of polygons enclosing contiguous geographic areas or by descriptors enumerating groups of civic locations.  For the former, the LoST server performs a point-in-polygon operation to find the polygon that contains the query   point.  (More complicated geometric matching algorithms may be added   in the future.) The forest guides need to decide which coverage region the query is in. I think the WG need to use the same algorithm that the LOST servers use or it is possible to miss the correct tree. • Agreed; needs wording. ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin)

  4. Experimental? • Looking at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html   (especially Guideline 3), I wonder why this is not Experimental. • WG decision ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin)

  5. Comment • One thing that I would have wished as a reader is more clarity on the organization of mapping information at the beginning of the document.  The described architecture uses "forest guides" and trees of LoST servers for mapping resolution.  It would be helpful for the reader if the document would define forest guides as the top level of a single conceptual hierarchy, which, at lower levels, branches into what is called "trees" in the document. • The reader may wonder why the forest guides in figure 1 are interconnected.  It may be worthwhile to explicitly state that these connections symbolize the optional synchronization protocol that may be executed between them. • Agreed. ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin)

  6. References • TLS, CMS and XML digital signatures should be informative references. • Yup. ECRIT - IETF 72 (Dublin)

More Related