Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-08: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think we lack sufficient precision (forgive the pun) in how we talk about "accuracy" and "precision". Are the leafs that claim to specify "accuracy" specifying a precision? If so, the precision of a specific measurement, the precision of the measurements that led to the creation of the coordinate frame, or something else? Are they doing so in relative terms (e.g., percentage) or absolute terms (e.g., degrees and meters)? (There are "units" directives only for "height-accuracy" and not the others.) How can we we say that we'll have 16 fraction-digits of precision for lat/long when the maximum accuracy we can say that a geodetic-system has only gives us 6 fraction-digits for coord-accuracy? When we say that the "precision of this measurement is indicated by the reference-frame" is that the same thing as the relevant "-accuracy" nodes, or something else? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (I support Roman's Discuss.) Why do we only define velocity in terms of north/east/up, when we could be in x/y/z coordinates where there is no clear "north" or "east"? It would have been helpful for the shepherd review to point to the thread at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/dA9olZfEVa3clGdfvNYEFXUEMJw/ that attempted to discuss the feedback from the yangdoctor review -- the mail with the review itself got no direct replies. Section 2.1 In addition to the "geodetic-datum" value, we allow refining the coordinate and height accuracy using "coord-accuracy" and "height- My understanding is that "refine" is a YANG keyword, and the current module/tree structure does not seem consistent with this description referring to use of the YANG keyword (since we can just set new values directly without needing to "refine" the YANG structure itself). A different word here might be appropriate. Finally, we define an optional feature which allows for changing the system for which the above values are defined. This optional feature adds an "alternate-system" value to the reference frame. This value is normally not present which implies the natural universe is the system. The use of this value is intended to allow for creating virtual realities or perhaps alternate coordinate systems. The definition of alternate systems is outside the scope of this document. This paragraph doesn't really convince me that we need to include the "alternate-system" capability in the proposed-standard version of this YANG module at this time. Section 2.3 meters per second. The values "v-north" and "v-east" are relative to true north as defined by the reference frame for the astronomical body, "v-up" is perpendicular to the plane defined by "v-north" and "v-east", and is pointed away from the center of mass. When I read this I wondered if the "plane defined by v-north and v-east" was taken at the initial snapshot position, or continuously updated with the effect of v-north and v-east drift. Given the stated application, it's unlikely that it actually would matter, though, so it's not clear that we should change the text to cover it. Section 3 and 91..126). The IANA registry further restricts the value by converting all spaces (' ') to dashes ('-')"; Is there a reason why we shouldn't disallow spaces via the regex (and obviate the need for special processing at IANA)? Section 5.1.2 The following subsection suggests that there is a "heading" field in the W3C structure/API, but I don't see one listed in Figure 1. Section 6.1 What are suitable references for the "me" and "mola-vik-1" geoedtic systems? I do not see how just the listed descriptions provide a "clear definition" even for the two coordinate values latitude/longitude. Section 7 Thanks for using the template for security considerations for YANG models! I think that since some of the portions of the template do not apply, they can safely be removed. In particular, the "these are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability" lines can go, and the clause about "can have a negative effect on network operations" may be worth tweaking (network operations may not be the most likely thing to be impacted). I think it's also okay to drop the paragraph/sentence about RPCs. Section 8 The [WGS84] and [EGM08] links don't work for me. ([EGM96] does.) Section 9 It seems like RFC 7950 is more properly classified as normative, since you can't really make sense of YANG without ... knowing YANG. I think 8340 is sometimes listed as normative as well, but the case is not quite as clear, here. NITS Abstract This document defines a generic geographical location object YANG grouping. [...] I'm having a hard time seeing what role the word "object" is playing here, especially since in the next sentence we just refer to the "geographical location grouping". Section 3 description "A location on an astronomical body (e.g., 'earth') somewhere in a universe."; I guess in some alternate-systems the "astronomical body" bit may not really be accurate. (And possibly in some cartesian coordinate frames, too, but that's less clear.) type string { pattern '[ -@\[-\^_-~]*'; If I'm reading my table correctly, '^' and '_' are adjacent, so this rather-reader-unfriendly regex formulation can't even be justified as the minimal encoding. '67p/churyumov-gerasimenko (a comet). The value should be comprised of all lower case ASCII characters not including control characters (i.e., values 32..64, and 91..126). [...] "all lower case ASCII characters" inherently excludes control characters, so "all lower case ASCII characters not including control characters" is redundant. Also, that doesn't match up the listed range of values (or the regex). (Also^2, that doesn't match the given comet name, which has numbers and punctuation.) for Cartesian coordinates. When coord-accuracy is specified, it overrides the geodetic-datum implied accuracy."; [...] "The accuracy of height value for ellipsoidal coordinates, this value is not used with Cartesian coordinates. When specified, it overrides the geodetic-datum implied default."; I suggest using parallel language for "when specified, overrides implied default". (That is, "coord-accuracy" is currently explicitly named but "height-accuracy" is not.) leaf v-up { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 12; } units "meters per second"; description "v-up is the rate of change (i.e., speed) away from the center of mass."; "center of mass" may not be universally applicable, e.g., to cartesian coordinates, binary systems, extremely massive objects that are not the astronomical-body of the reference-frame. Section 4 We probably should expand CRS at/before first usage. Section 6.1 Each entry should be sufficient to define the 3 coordinate values (2 if height is not required). So for example the "wgs-84" is defined I'd suggest flipping the order, for "should be sufficient to define the 2 coordinate values, and to define height if height is required". _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
