[Ietf-calsify] GEO in draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis-07.txt

[Eliot Lear]

Steve,

Thanks for your comment.  Can you restate your point in a succinct 
proposed textual change?

Eliot

Steve Allen wrote:
> In the context of metrology I wonder about the text in
> 3.8.1.6.  Geographic Position
>
> It says
>     The longitude and
>     latitude values MAY be specified up to six decimal places, which
>     will allow for accuracy to within one meter of geographical
>     position.
>
> This is only true if the geodetic datum is specified.
>
> I point out the US DoD's instructional page to soldiers on this
> http://earth-info.nima.mil/GandG/publications/horizdatum.html
>
> At a more technical level I point out the partial list of datums in
> use at
> http://earth-info.nima.mil/GandG/publications/tm8358.1/tr83581b.html#ZZ23
> where in the links to the graphics for table 2 it is immediately
> evident that some older geodetic datums upon which available maps are
> based differ by hundreds of meters from the more recent,
> satellite-geodesy-based datums.
>
> In much the same vein as quoting the standards documents for UTC, if
> the values used in this field are to be believed at a level of 1
> meter, then it is at the least necessary to require that the latitude
> and longitude values be expressed in a standard geodetic datum created
> no earlier than the year 1980.
>
> --
> Steve Allen                 <sla at ucolick.org>                WGS-84 (GPS)
> UCO/Lick Observatory        Natural Sciences II, Room 165    Lat  +36.99855
> University of California    Voice: +1 831 459 3046           Lng -122.06015
> Santa Cruz, CA 95064        http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/     Hgt +250 m
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-calsify mailing list
> Ietf-calsify at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify
>
>