I searched for longitute or geo in RFC 8299 and this was not a big hit. Concrete definitions will help. I do know about https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07 and that has been dragging on from 2012 to 2016 within the NMRG and I think this even had a life outside the NMRG before. What I am looking for is concrete (ideally YANG) definitions that people have already created and that can be the basis of a common standard. And of course an argument why location data is so essential that it has to be in ietf-yang-types and can't be in say a module ietf-geo-types.
/js On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:17:21AM +0000, Qin Wu wrote: > Agree with this criteria, remember geo location proposal was discussed before > by ALTO proponents in LMAP, in addition, location service is useful for L3VPN > sevice placement, see example case in RFC8299 which can select appropriate PE > based on location info. Acee also provided a valid use case in this e-mail > thread. > > 发件人： Juergen Schoenwaelder > 收件人： Qin Wu<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > 抄送： netmod<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > 主题： Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis > 时间： 2018-11-01 20:04:15 > > I think we need to find a way to limit the update to types that are > known (or expected) to be 'widely' needed. In other words, for every > proposed type, an argument should be made why this should be included > in RFC 6991bis. > > /js > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 11:55:25AM +0000, Qin Wu wrote: > > I am wondering if we can add longitude, latitude in DMS or decimal degree, > > Further we can consider to add > > Postal-code, Country-code like Location type. > > > > -Qin > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Juergen Schoenwaelder > > 发送时间: 2018年10月31日 20:47 > > 收件人: [email protected] > > 主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis > > > > Here is my list of possible additions. I might have lost some items on a > > computer that meanwhile is not used anymore, I will have to dig a bit to > > see what I can recover. > > > > /js > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > another update that was discussed recently is a clarification of the > > > XPath context for the xpath1.0 type. > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > Kent Watsen <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > NETMOD WG, > > > > > > > > A conversation in NETCONF WG regarding the yang-push noted that it > > > > might be time to update RFC 6991, in particular to introduce a type for > > > > time-duration. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KaUJloIShkLNIXTuHZNwB- > > > > SYBnQ > > > > > > > > In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC > > > > 5322 (Internet Message Format) including perhaps: > > > > > > > > - email-address (addr-spec, per Section 3.4.1) > > > > - named-email-address (name-addr, per Section 3.4) > > > > > > > > > > > > Kent // contributor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > -- > > > Ladislav Lhotka > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netmod mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
