Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis

ANOTHER NIT:

                         The Postfix program

<bernarda@microsoft.com>: host
     winse-6216-mail6.customer.frontbridge.com[131.107.115.215] said: 550
5.1.1
     User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)

you should Fix the Author's Addresses section, too.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Claudio Allocchio wrote:

>
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this
> draft (for background on apps-review, please see
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
> may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
> before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis
> Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio (GARR, Italian Research and Academic Network)
> Review Date: 2010-11-30
> IETF Last Call Date: 2010-10-11
> IESG Telechat Date: 2010-12-02
>
> Summary: This draft specifies quite well and clearly the problem to solve, 
> and all its impications and scenarios. Examples in appendixes are useful to 
> understand real cases and help implementors to avoid misunderstandings (even 
> if at first sight the lenght balance of "normative text section" vs 
> "appendix/examples sections" might look unfair). It looks ok for publication 
> and it seems to clarfy all points raised. Just see the Minor issues and Nits 
> below.
>
> Major Issues: None.
>
> Minor Issues:
>
>
> Section 2.2.1.2.  Server Version Selection
>
> The sentence
>
>   "A DHCPv4 server that provides location
>   information cannot provide options with both version 0 and version 1
>   formats in the same response."
>
> does not use a normative language... it says "cannot"... Given also the 
> explanation in the following of the text, I would suggest using normative 
> language here, to avoid implementation problems, e.g.:
>
>   "A DHCPv4 server that provides location
>   information MUST NOT provide options with both version 0 and version 1
>   formats in the same response."
>
> Section 2.4.3.  Altitude in Floors (AType = 2)
>
> The Altitude value is a 30bits fixed point, thus it can have a negative 
> value. However in thr "AType = 2" (Floors) section I would suggest adding a 
> sentence also to cover clearly "undel Ground Level" floors (... my main 
> GigaPop is at -2 ... for example).
>
>  "For instance, and undeground Servers room could be represented as -2.0"
>
> Nits:
>
>  Boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>
>  You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice
>  from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009.  (See
>  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
>
> :-)
>
> go ahead!
>
> best regards,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R 
> Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it
>                        Senior Technical Officer
> tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
> fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;
>
>           PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca