> # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lisp-geo-14 > CC @ekline Thanks for your comments Eril. Revision -15 has been posted to reflect your comments.
> ## Comments > > ### S3, S4.2 > > * Given that a Geo-Point includes an altitude, wouldn't a Geo-Point and a > radius describe a sphere and not a circle? Should the altitude be ignored > for "Geo-Point ∈ Geo-Prefix" evaluations? No, it was intended to be included in the specification. I have changed "circle" to "sphere" for the Geo-Prefix definition. > ### S4.2 > > * I don't quite follow the "longest prefix" analogy here. I would have > expected "longest prefix" implies "greater specificity" ergo "smaller > radius" rather than larger? Since we are dealing with physical area, we use the largest area to give preference. The system does support concentric circles and the mapping system can return (all encompassing circles/spheres) for the Geo-Point. So the larger the radius the larger the area. We called it "longest match" beacuse we are choosing the prefix with the "longest" or largest radius value. > Undoubtedly there's some LISP context here I'm lacking. RFC 9301 seems > to talk about returning more specific when there are multiple overlapping > prefixes. But again: I'm sure I must be missing something (well, many > things, but... :-) ). Yes, see above. > ### S5 > > * You cite S2 the WGS84 as the source definition for a Geo-Point > (Geo-Coordinate) but declare here the Altitude vertical datum is MSL. > > I think MSL is fine, and probably more intuitive, but AIUI it's not the > same as the WGS84 geodetic height above the reference ellipsoid. > > Perhaps just note the specific change in the terminology summary in S2? I don't understand exactly what you are asking. Please provide text. Thanks again, Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
