[Standards-JIG] Relation of JEP-0080: User Geolocationandietf-geopriv?

Heiner Wolf wolf at bluehands.de
Tue Jul 6 15:56:33 UTC 2004

> First of all, RFC stands for Request for Comments. 

Yes. They say: "Please send any comments to the iesg at ietf.org or
ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2004-07-16". So I assume it is a request
for comments. It is no RFC, which means it does not have an IETF RFC

> Second, I don't agree with that we have to follow IETF per se. 

Yes. Lets tell them that we don't follow and lets propose something
else. The authors of JEP-0080 probably know the author of
draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-02.txt. Because I think they have the biggest
authority in this issue I would like to ask, what chance they see to
discuss this from author to autor? I write my comment to the list, but
my position is weaker. 

Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
+49 (0721) 16108 75
Jabber enabled virtual presence on the web: http://www.lluna.de/
Open Source Future History: http://www.galactic-developments.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org
> [mailto:standards-jig-bounces at jabber.org]On Behalf Of Ralph Meijer
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:45 PM
> To: Jabber protocol discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Standards-JIG] Relation of JEP-0080: User
> Geolocationandietf-geopriv?
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:33:01PM +0200, Heiner Wolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > yes, I don't like it either. 
> > 
> > Section 2.2.1 says something about "coordinate reference 
> systems" and
> > that from GML 3.0 the "'feature.xsd' GML schema is REQUIRED". This
> > sounds more like longitude/latitude. But I admit I don't 
> understand the
> > feature.xsd (attached). It seems to be so general that I 
> can not find
> > the longitude/latitude aspect. 
> I have glanced the GML specification. It is awfully large, and I think
> way to complex for what JEP-0080 and JEP-0112 are aimed at. 
> If you really
> wanted, you could transform one in the other using XSLT or something.
> > I don't get the "coordinate reference systems" part. I 
> don't like it. On
> > the other hand, it's not a good idea for an IETF approved 
> IM protocol to
> > NOT follow the IETF in pidf-related things. Since Jabber is a strong
> > community, maybe it's the time to tell the author (or the 
> IESG) that the
> > draft is not good and even not compatible with JEP-0080. 
> After all its a
> > request for comments, not yet an RFC. 
> First of all, RFC stands for Request for Comments. Second, I 
> don't agree with
> you that we have to follow IETF per se. JEPs are not 
> affiliated with the IETF
> (we do Jabber, they do XMPP). We have our own goals, and many 
> times the stuff
> already there is either too complex or doesn't meet the 
> goals. Of course
> we /can/ learn from these other specifications, and possibly 
> provide mappings
> between our stuff and the stuff out there (e.g. JEP-0107, 
> User Mood, provides
> a mapping between the JEP and how moods are handled in 
> Wireless Village).
> Note that this approach doesn't mean that you can't use GML in Jabber
> applications. If you need the more complex stuff, go for it. 
> It is still XML
> and you can fit it right in some stanza.
> Cost vs. Benefit
> -- 
> Groetjes,
> Ralphm
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list