Hello Dino, Long time not talk 😉
About GPS, it did appear in -15 in the abstract ;-) but no more in -16. I will clear my DISCUSS once on-line (SN flight do not have Wi-Fi – the IEEE canonical way of writing ;-) ) Regards -éric From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 5 June 2025 at 22:34 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Kiran Makhijani <[email protected]>, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lisp-geo-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thanks Eric. See comments inline. This is my last email in the series, so I will wait 1 day to post -16 so I can get reactions to my responses. > ## DISCUSS (blocking) > > As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a > DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics: > > ### Abstract and other places > > A common error (done by this author as well) is to use "GPS" (a US commercial > service) rather than GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), which is > generic as it includes GPS from USA, Galileo from Europe, Glonass, Beido. So, > simply s/Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)/Global Navigation Satellite System > (GNSS)/ to have technical content and not commercial. The word "GPS" does not appear in the document. Is there a specific reference you want changed? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) > > ### Other DISCUSS > > I support Med Boucadair's point about DISCUSS on consistency of > identification/characterisation of a geo-point across various IETF > specifications (thank you Ketan for the text) Okay, check out -16 since I tried to fix Med's concerns. > ### Other COMMENT > > Erik Kline has a point in section 5 about the altitude definition, I was about > to raise it to a DISCUSS. I changed references from "circle" to "sphere" to address this. I did not hear from Erik if that was sufficient. > Deb Cooley has also a good point about what it the experiment scope, duration, > and evaluation. Working group chairs or AD please respond!!! > > ### Only static object > > Was it considered that object can be moving, i.e., having a speed vector ? Yes. > ### Section 4.2 > > Like other ADs, I completely fail to understand that longest-prefix is akin > largest-radius,i.e., longest-prefix is the most specific and largest-radius is > the less specific. As many people do not understand, either the text is wrong > or some explanations should be there. Did you feel the explanation in -15 was not sufficient? I explained the logic to Erik. Did you see that email? > s/WiFi/Wi-Fi/ A "WiFi" is an accepted term. Why change it? > > Like others, I am unsure whether referencing expired I-Ds is useful.$ How about it may help the other IDs if those documents come out of expiration. I would like the OSPF, ISIS, and BGP working group chairs to raise their opinions. > ### Section 5 > > I have dealt with several coordinates systems and usually the > latitude/longitude can be negative to indicate South or East ot <0, 0>. Why is > this draft deviating from this well-accepted format ? This can only make > things > & algorithms more complex. Please reconsider. It was a design decision among the 4 groups to use more descriptive coordinates than using decimal encoding. > M-bit, I have serious doubt that GNSS are accurate enough to the centimeter of > altitude without specific devices (and base stations on the ground). Right, we know. But we included it anyway so a 1RU device could be located in a data center rack. > ### Section 9 > > Please add a URI for the IANA registry to avoid any ambiguity. Can you supply one for us? Thanks, Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
