Re: draft-costanzo-dns-gl-00.txt

[Terry Lambert <terry@whistle.com>]

Greg A. Woods wrote:
> According to my reading of RFC 1876 it's possible to describe
> any geo-synchronous body at any altitude up to 42849672.95
> meters (though I suspect orbital mechanics rule out quite a
> bit of that range!  ;-).

Not for geosynchronous objects, it won't.  They can all be
addressed, if they are inside the sphere.

[ ... ]

> > GL can do it in a snap. SO how is LOC 'far superior'  or
> > does it just appear to be better because you have to do
> > alot more work to use it :-)
> 
> I'm not necessarily opposed to the proposed GL RR, but I
> don't really see how it'll solve any problem not already
> solved by LOC RRs, including their usability.  Ultimately
> LOC RRs seem far more flexible to me and thus far more
> useful.

Well, I can imagine two scenarios, off the bat:

1)	"On board space station MIR,
	 Module three"

	Sure it's not a great postal address, but it's
	enough of one that, with independent information
	about orbital mechanics, you could locate the
	system.

2)	"In the trunk,
	 1974 Buick Electra,
	 Utah License CSE 245"

	Again, not a great postal address, but enough to
	locate the system, relative to the Buick, which
	you might, again, do with external information.

Not that these are really very likely, IMO...


-- Terry Lambert
-- Whistle Communications, Inc.
-- terry@whistle.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is formal notice under California Assembly Bill 1629, enacted
9/26/98 that any UCE sent to my email address will be billed $50
per incident to the legally allowed maximum of $25,000.