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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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