Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Mon, 31 October 2016 18:15 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 2E5181299A3 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <dvEiIvx6tXHt>
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: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] 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 dvEiIvx6tXHt for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 257ED12946F for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:15:11 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240601d43d39fb088b@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR17MB107171FFC603A9DA683B5DBFA7C70@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.ou tlook.com>
References: <MWHPR17MB107171FFC603A9DA683B5DBFA7C70@MWHPR17MB1071.namprd17.prod.ou tlook.com>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:15:09 -0700
To: Dan Banks <DBanks@ddti.net>, "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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/Ds8wHBhRgM7lqcvIrH0JGS8swwI>
Cc: "Rosen, Brian (Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz)" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03 feedback
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: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:15:13 -0000

At 9:06 PM +0000 10/6/16, Dan Banks wrote:

>  I have been working on an implementation of the similar location 
> mechanism described by draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-03, and 
> have some feedback:
>
>  1)
>  For completeLocation, the actual element name in the schema is 
> "completedlocation", with a 'd' and lowercase 'l'.  It appears this 
> should be "completeLocation".  There is also a use of 
> "completedLocation" on page 5 that should be changed.  Also, there 
> will only be a single completeLocation returned.

I agree; these should be addressed.

>  2)
>  An element "returnedLocationResponse" is defined by the schema, but 
> not discussed in the text or illustrated in the examples:

I agree, this should be addressed.

>  3)
>  It is desirable to have away for a client to specifically request 
> RLI, instead of it being included any time that validation is 
> performed.  Responses with multiple similar locations can quickly 
> become large compared to responses without RLI, and may also incur 
> additional processing cost at the server.  This could be wasteful 
> if automated validation is being performed or if the RLI is 
> otherwise not understood or discarded.  I suggest an attribute be 
> added to the findService request (perhaps rli:returnLocation) with 
> defined values of { "none" | "similar"  | "complete" | "any" } to 
> indicate which return location types the client is interested in. 
> Further, I suggest that the server be restricted to including only 
> RLI types in the response that are requested, and that omitting the 
> attribute from the request is equivalent to 
> rli:returnLocation="none".

This seems worth discussing.

>  5)
>  I would like to suggest that each element that users the 
> locationInformation pattern should only represent one location. 
> That is, instead of a single similarLocation element containing 
> multiple civicAddress elements (as illustrated in the example), 
> multiple similarLocation elements should be used with each 
> containing a single civicAddress.

This seems helpful.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
f u cn rd ths, itn tyg h myxbl cd.