IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary-04

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 November 2010 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A713A6A4D for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:57:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RY8Qt6fpFZpz for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E86D3A6A58 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:57:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-71-48-4.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.71.48.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAODwbbJ082972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:58:38 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=PikWng266p49X7Wpi+tq5ASfU+yM5d51HiFqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:58:37 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1307C542-6B38-40FA-85C7-D64608DD6E8D@nostrum.com>
References: <F3D762E3-28B4-48A1-BAA8-33ECCD1F9B46@nostrum.com> <AANLkTi=PikWng266p49X7Wpi+tq5ASfU+yM5d51HiFqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl Heinz Wolf <khwolf1@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.71.48.4 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary-04
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:57:42 -0000

<trim/>

> 
> 
>> At the top of page 10, the phrase "so no boundary information is reasonable" is ambiguous. Is it trying to say
>> "there is no boundary information that is reasonable to send" or "it is reasonable to send no boundary information"?
> 
> Would putting the sentence this way make it clearer:
> The <listServices> request is purely for diagnostic purposes and does
> not contain location information at all, so boundary information
> cannot be calculated.
> 

Yes - thanks!

> 
> Thank you for your suggestions, I'll note them.
> 
> Karl Heinz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email