h1. Location data

h2. Aim: 

Add more precise information about the location of a node.

IDMEF class Node already has a location attribute. But it is only a single string, which isn't enough to describe precisely the location of the node.

h2. Solution 1:

Replace the field location in Node by a normalised class.

|_.Impacted Class|_.Proposed Field|_.Type   |

|/5.[[IDMEF_Node_Zoom|Node]]->Location|latitude|float|

|longitude|float|

|city|String|

|country|String|

|state|String|

|{background:#e99b9b}.[[IDMEF_Node_Zoom|Node]]|\2{background:#e99b9b}.Location|

h3. Pros

* It is and will be more and more important in the future for Connected Objects

h3. Cons

* We have to choose a standard for longitude and latitude

* Needs to define "when" the position is calculated (ex : connected object moving) 

h2. Meetings: 

+30/10/2015 Meeting+: OK !

> *GL*: Could be interesting to also add an agency name for enterprises for example.

> *SM* : Indeed, this information is available in LEEF.

> *GL* : We will have to choose a standard for longitude and latitude, since there are many of them.

> *YV* : To be discussed in priority because some changes must be made in Prelude regarding this topic. Should be done *before FIC ! Meeting ASAP !*

> *VH* : Prelude shouldn't really interfere with SECEF and it seems hazardous to me to change the implementation of IDMEF before having set up on a new structure for the format. However, I understand this is necessary, and, since everyone seem to agree on this topic, we could maybe make an exception.