Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review for draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-06.txt

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 11 April 2013 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3788021F8EC1; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.059
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RaoIwuyFTBSP; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310EE21F8EBF; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1176; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1365665175; x=1366874775; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D6fucl2W5chUfkuqVFIl9B/YLqtWpnUt0Qk9udOwTSA=; b=BcjF33stW0Jz+lAviklPMovbzf8U3tWRyxVgpJ+6zLBMj9gFgVF8NHMJ RGhRNkD1+p74eBEYdblOm5lLs1z9ipVHr1iyUrPEBun61VkVd8SmjzRs/ Tl2d1hW929ZKP7s/MRWxaWbSXz1LnGiP4lz5w9liTbGG8eRgQ3mA8gW86 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AicFAOVkZlGQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABQgwaDZL4dgQEWdIIfAQEBAwEjDwFGEAsaAgUhAgIPAiwaBg0BBwEBiAoGrBySfIEjjXMHgi6BEwOXAJEOgVWBODo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,454,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="13255037"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2013 07:26:12 +0000
Received: from mctiny.local ([10.61.162.228]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3B7Q9Oq000513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:26:09 GMT
Message-ID: <51666591.30208@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:26:09 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <5151B0B5.2090407@cisco.com> <CABkgnnWNPMgsNACjOYdxcn3VW20LFOOS5XeFO9Nifxv2hJTwUg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWNPMgsNACjOYdxcn3VW20LFOOS5XeFO9Nifxv2hJTwUg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review for draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-06.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:26:16 -0000

Hi Martin,

All my other review comments are satisfied, save just one:

On 4/11/13 2:00 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:

>> Major issues:
>>
>> § 4.3, page 10: I realize it'd be silly to write a six line RFC for this,
>> but the semantics of the HELD examples seem normative.  I think it's
>> appropriate for them to be so, but then you should make it more explicit.
>> Same with your XMPP example.
> I don't see how you could infer that the example is normative from
> this.  The examples throughout were always intended to be illustrative
> only.

Sorry I meant that you are honing in on HELD even outside of the
specific example.

>
> I can see how you might want to have a separate document for the
> measurement "request", such as it is, but that doesn't fare especially
> well outside of the context of the document, so we decided to keep
> this together with the measurement definitions.

That's right, and I don't think you should create a separate spec.  Now
it's been a while since I did the review but I recall traipsing through
HELD to try to determine whether in fact this spec updates that spec. 
If so that should be indicated.

Eliot