11:09 a.m.
On 2 Nov 2018, at 16:09, ALAIN AINA wrote:
Ryan,
See that attached document with a couple of comments.
Alain, your comment D-2 is most timely. At some point - probably when
preparing the meta-data format - we have to review security implications
of the information asked for, and decide if we 1) only include
information that is OK for public access, or 2) create a mechanism for
sharing mapping information only among trusted parties.
I will unfortunately not be able to join the meeting today. A few
comments on the v0.7 draft document:
- page numbers on the document would be nice
- It might be a good idea to make explicit (in the Introduction, maybe?)
that the data format is also intended to be useful for static and
offline maps.
- There’s a couple of important comments on N-2 that I believe we
should address in the text
- in a couple of place (N-4, V-2 being examples), there’s
multi-tagging and extensible tagging. I agree with those, but I think we
should make it clear that tags must be standardised, to ensure
consistent use of the same tag for the same thing.
- The point on subsea cable systems (L-6) is could be moved to L-10, as
it’s really just another way of doing waypoints.
- I still think the reference to “central data base” (D-1) is too
implementation specific at this point.
I wish all a productive meeting today.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer - Strategy & Policy, NORDUnet
<lars(a)nordu.net>, +45 2288 1729, @lpfischer