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@nordu.net, +45 2288 1729, @lpfischer