[Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de> Wed, 23 August 2006 11:04 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFqXU-0000O9-QL; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:04:52 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFqXU-0000Nz-2t for crisp@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:04:52 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFoo3-0006no-Qx for crisp@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:13:51 -0400
Received: from smtp.denic.de ([]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFoe2-0002Fn-4R for crisp@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:03:36 -0400
Received: from notes.rz.denic.de ([]) by smtp.denic.de with esmtp id 1GFodu-0003f3-Sy; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:03:22 +0200
To: crisp@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
From: Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de>
Message-ID: <OFA464C7D4.8B9F6A32-ONC12571D3.002ED1B3-C12571D3.0031BC87@notes.denic.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:03:15 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes/Denic at 23.08.2006 11:03:22, Serialize complete at 23.08.2006 11:03:22
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org

Hello Andy,
hello all,

yet again, here are some last call comments (sorry):

Section 3: On the use of attribute "language" for all <description>: RFC 
3470 strongly recommends to use the attribute "xml:lang" for these 
purposes instead.

Section 3: Wouldn't it be more compact to have a <authenticationResult> 
instead of two sepparate elements for one semantic? Then 
<authenticationResult> would have a child choice between <success/> and 
<failure/> (together with the potential <description> children). This is 
just optimization, I really don't care much about this.

Section 3: Why is the attribute protocolId of type "token", but the other 
Ids (extensionIds, authenticationIds) are "normalizedString"? I know that 
the only difference is the whitespace collapsing, I just want to know if 
there's some deeper meaning behind that.

Section 4: Seeing the comments on the lwz draft in the general IETF 
mailing list, I don't know if it's fortunate to list dreg1 in the example 
as being transported over iris.lwz

Section 1: s/specifed/specified/
Section 1: s/comforant/conformant/
Section 4: s/Each of these element types/Each of these element types 
(except <versions>)/
Section 4: s/optionalal/optional/
Section 4: s/identifers/identifiers/
Section 4: s/transfered/transferred/
Section 4: s/transfer of data is counted/transfer of data could be 

And the actualization/corrections of the references section, but this has 
already been mentioned for the lwz draft in the general list.

Best regards,

Crisp mailing list