Re: [Ecrit] comments on draft-marshall-ecrit-similar-location-03

Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com> Mon, 10 March 2014 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A531A048C for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
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 m06iUxRYm_nd for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com (sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com [199.165.246.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B434E1A031D for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SEA-EXCAS-3.telecomsys.com (exc2010-local3.telecomsys.com [10.32.12.6]) by sea-mx-02.telecomsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2AExruE004091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:59:53 -0700
Received: from SEA-EXMB-2.telecomsys.com ([169.254.2.229]) by SEA-EXCAS-3.telecomsys.com ([10.32.12.6]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:59:53 -0700
From: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-marshall-ecrit-similar-location-03
Thread-Index: Ac87ntvPmPUwHVmoQGy7jmgCYqAOMAA0mG7g
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:59:53 +0000
Message-ID: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC10094A75@SEA-EXMB-2.telecomsys.com>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303FC8A1@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303FC8A1@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.32.12.134]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/1QeswQkgsInRzma56AxBm28a8v0
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] comments on draft-marshall-ecrit-similar-location-03
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:00:08 -0000

Thank you Barbara for reading through the draft and supplying comments.  I'll take a look at them shortly, and provide a response this week.

-roger marshall.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ecrit [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 6:53 AM
To: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: [Ecrit] comments on draft-marshall-ecrit-similar-location-03

I've read this draft and think that it's potentially useful, very simple, and worthy of proceeding.

I've sent the authors my complete set of comments (including editorial and readability comments). Here are my slightly more substantive comments to the draft.

1. extensionPoint needs to be described and exemplified.

2. Security concerns section needs to mention concerns for invalid locations, as well.

3. Terminology: entry for Civic Location is missing, listed terms are not the same as the terms used in the text, and definition of "Invalid" is totally confusing. Based on terms used in document, I recommend removing "Invalid", "Invalid Civic Element" and "Invalid Civic Location" and adding the following terms (definitions of these terms are just suggestions):
  1. Civic Location: pointer to RFC that defines it well.
  2. Invalid Element: Any element of a LoST request's Civic Location that the LoST response indicates is invalid.
  3. Invalid Location: A Civic Location that was included in a LoST request and has one or more Invalid Elements as indicated in the LoST response.
  4. Invalid Response: A LoST response that lists one or more Invalid Elements (i.e., indicates the LoST request's Civic Location is an Invalid Location).
Alternately, the terms used in the text can be changed to match the terms in Terminology ("Invalid Civic Element" and "Invalid Civic Location"). But the definitions in Terminology still need fixing.

Barbara

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.