Re: [Ecrit] Editorial issues in similar-location-13

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

I've checked -14 and confirmed it looks good. Thank you for fixing it.

Just out of curiosity, what was the bug?

--Randall

On 29 Nov 2021, at 10:41, Brian Rosen wrote:

> I thought I had addressed the “comma” problem in v13.  Turns out 
> there is some kind of tooling problem: the xml2rfc on tools.ietf.org 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/> is different from the one used in submission, 
> and there is a bug, or at least some confusion, on the submission 
> version.  I created a -14 that fixes it.
>
> I did the other fixes also.
>
> Brian
>
>
>> On Nov 26, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Randall Gellens 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> (1) This wouldn't be worth a revision by itself, but I think we need 
>> a rev for item (2) so we may as well fix this also: In Section 3, the 
>> sixth paragraph starts "Since [RFC5222] currently does not have a 
>> way". The "currently" is awkward since an RFC is immutable. Consider 
>> rewording by either dropping the "currently" (making the text "Since 
>> [RFC5222] does not have a way") or changing "[RFC5222]" to "LoST" 
>> (making the text "Since LoST currently does not have a way").
>>
>> (2) I think this should be fixed before we go to IETF Last Call: 
>> There are a few examples in Section 3 that were the focus of emails 
>> from several people requesting a comma before the city name. These 
>> examples have been changed to use a fictitious city but is still lack 
>> the comma. I think these should be fixed before IETF LC since this is 
>> a point of confusion. The text in question:
>>
>>   Input address: 6000 15th Avenue Leets, WA US
>>
>>   Complete Location: 6000 15th Avenue Northwest Leets, WA 98105 US
>>
>> ...
>>
>>   Input address: 6000 15th Avenue North Leets, WA US
>>
>> ...
>>
>>   Similar address #1: 6000 15th Avenue Northwest Leets, WA 98107 US
>>
>>   Similar address #2: 6000 15th Avenue Northeast Leets, WA 98105 US
>>
>> These should all have a comma inserted before "Leets".
>>
>>
>> (3) Since I think we have to fix (2), we may as well fix this also: 
>> In the 7th line of the paragraph with first line:
>>
>>   As another example of the use of <similarLocation>, consider the
>>
>> There is a  missing space after a comma in the 13th paragraph of 
>> Section 3:
>>
>>   have resulted in a uniquely identifiable location,the server can
>>
>> (4) Same as item (1), the "[RFC5222] currently" wording appears in 
>> the 10th line of the paragraph starting:
>>
>>   As another example of the use of <similarLocation>, consider the
>>
>> (5) The 14th paragraph of Section 3 is:
>>
>>   To show this, suppose that a slightly modified version of the above
>>   address is sent within a Lost <findService request>:
>>
>> Please move the close angle bracket to be after "findService" rather 
>> than "request".
>>
>>
>> --Randall