It seems from a quick glance through it that draft-ietf-simple-
rpid-08 gives context.
The initial list of locations seems entirely arbitrary, and most of
the definitions seem woolly and imprecise. Maybe the arbitrariness
is intentional, though, and maybe the quality of definitions
doesn't matter. I don't know enough about the goals of the
underlying effort to comment.
More precise definitions are always helpful, but I don't think it is
necessary to have a complete catalogue of all possible types of
locations suitable for an insurance company policy. The goal is that
if there's a location, that if two people are asked to pick the
closest label, they'll likely agree and they'll likely find something
that matches. Clearly, this can be pushed to precision beyond need.
For example, I doubt that we need to identify median strips on roads
separately.
There are some spelling mistakes. That's about as far as my
informed commentary on this draft goes :-)
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf