[Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-10: Comments that shouldn't be controversial

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
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 14FDC21F8F32 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9jz5xI5Zgagv for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797CA21F9343 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 43549f15.0.5063540.00-333.13998832.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from <bs7652@att.com>); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:11:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 51f945340c500d6e-5866273df1668be276bf93bece04e00cade2d574
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6VHBFvI008916 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:11:16 -0400
Received: from alpi133.aldc.att.com (alpi133.aldc.att.com [130.8.217.3]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6VHB9dL008842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:11:10 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com (gaalpa1msghub9e.itservices.sbc.com [130.8.36.91]) by alpi133.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:10:47 GMT
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.69]) by GAALPA1MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.8.36.91]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:10:47 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-10: Comments that shouldn't be controversial
Thread-Index: Ac6OEOSqFFeQiqM6RDeMCKvb/8HM6w==
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:10:45 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130317D01@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.111.169]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <bs7652@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=YP8oP26x c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=qNrsC2a8x_wA:10 a=TtRkBHEu1jQA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=9Ax]
X-AnalysisOut: [d0npj4SAA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpK]
X-AnalysisOut: [OAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=VKpzcmLlYEkA:10 a=weQFf2NtTvIZe]
X-AnalysisOut: [XWb0GwA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10]
Subject: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-10: Comments that shouldn't be controversial
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:11:32 -0000

I've grouped all of my comments that I don't expect to be controversial (or to require much discussion) in this email.
I also provided the authors with a set of spelling errors that I'm not going to send to the list.

----------
2. Terminology
   'Conditional':  means they must be present unless the specified
   condition is met, in which case the they may be present. 

Comment 23: "unless the specified condition is met" is not right. One possibility would be "if the specific condition is met".
-----------
3.1.2.  Data Provider ID

   Use :  Conditional.  Must be provided if the service provider is
      located in a jurisdiction that maintains such ids .  Devices are
      not required to provide it.

   Description:  A jurisdiction specific code for the provider  shown in
      the <DataProvidedBy> element that created the structure of the
      call.  This data SHOULD be provided if the local jurisdiction
      maintains such an ID list.  For example, in North America, this
      would be a "NENA Company ID".  Devices SHOULD NOT use this
      element.

Comment 24: Normative language from Description belongs in Use
------------
3.1.6.  Data Provider Languages(s) Supported

   Use:  Conditional 

   Description:  The language used by the entity at the Data Provider
      Contact URI as an alpha 2-character code as defined in ISO
      639-1:2002 Codes for the representation of names of languages --
      Part 1: Alpha-2 code Multiple instances of this element may occur.
      Order is significant; preferred language should appear first.
      This data is required if a Data Provider Contact URI is provided. 
      The content must reflect the languages supported at the contact
      URI.

Comment 25: Conditional on what? Should the conditional sentence in Description (penultimate sentence) be moved to Use to be consistent with other Use fields?
Comment 26: Since Contact URI is required, and this field is conditional upon a required field, doesn't that make this required?
------------
3.3.6.  Device/Service Specific Additional Data Structure
VEDs / VEDS
Comment 26: I don't know this acronym. Can you spell it out? And use it consistently (VEDs or VEDS)?
------------
7.  Security Considerations
PKI
Comment 27: Spell this out.