Location Types Registry
RFC 4589

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2006-03-02)
No email
send info
Based on Gen-ART review by John Loughney, but backing up David's Discuss.
The types are quite soft in nature and not algorithmically precise.
The scope for interpretation is wide. This will make both the expert
reviewer's task very vague, and operational choices very unclear.

"I found many of the location types confusing, for
example:

  water:

      The person is on water, such as an ocean, lake, river, canal or
      other waterway.

 watercraft:

      The person is traveling in a boat or ship.

What about a swimmer or SCUBA diver?  What if the boat is not moving, is
it still traveling? My gut feeling is that the place needs to be
separate from the action.  Addtionally, prepositions should be separate
from the place (i.e. - on, in, above, under, etc.).

In summary - the location places should be just locations, there should
be no linkage to the activity of the target with respect to the
location."

(David Kessens; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-02-28 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
To my great surprise, I'm a no-objection on this document rather than
a discuss or abstain.  The authors have done a good job of explaining
how the registry might be used in enough detail that protocol
designers can determine if this registry is appropriate.  Also, the
IANA considerations are much improved.  Thanks for the great work with
last call comments.

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info