Re: [Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-23: (with COMMENT)

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Thu, 19 January 2017 02:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233A2129453; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:40:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <KL8wOoqNUKIb>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KL8wOoqNUKIb; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:40:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1019D127A90; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.186.219.182] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:37:05 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240605d4a524c72c91@[10.186.219.182]>
In-Reply-To: <148465831000.31986.8406297543964675711.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148465831000.31986.8406297543964675711.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:20:42 -0800
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/-d68nvmXmDfQOkJYXv-dXhEE72Q>
Cc: draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall@ietf.org, Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>, ecrit@ietf.org, ecrit-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on__dra?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-23=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 02:40:33 -0000

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for your review.  Please see inline.

At 5:05 AM -0800 1/17/17, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:

>  Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>  draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-23: No Objection
>
>  When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>  email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>  introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>  Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>  for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>  The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall/
>
>
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  COMMENT:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  Minor comments:
>  - sec 9.1.1.1: Is there a case where 'received' could be not 'true'. I
>  mean how can you acknowledge something that you didn't receive?

That section says "this <ack> element indicates 
if the PSAP considers the MSD successfully 
received or not."  Unlike legacy (CS) eCall, the 
MSD can't get corrupted during transit, but it's 
possible that there is a bug in either the IVS's 
creation of the MSD or the PSAP's interpretation 
of it.

>  - I find the wording used saying "This document registers .." (in the
>  whole document) not fully approrpiate because the main purpose of this
>  doc is the spcification of the usage of these registrations. I would
>  propose the following, e.g.
>  OLD
>  "This document registers "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test
>  calls."
>  NEW
>  "This document specifies "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test
>  calls and registers it in section X."

I reviewed each use of "registers" in the 
document; to me, the uses are appropriate and 
except for the service URNs that you mention, 
alternative wording would be awkward.  I did make 
the changes you suggest for the service URNs 
(both "SOS" and "test").

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Did you know that clones never use mirrors?