[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Nov-30-2012
IETF LC End Date: Dec-26-2012
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

This document is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 2

Nits:

1/ S1: The value "thing" sort of creeps up on you in the second
  paragraph.  Upon further reading, it becomes more apparent that
  during the WG discussions "thing" was a meta-value (or super-
  class) and that "application" and "device" appear to be sub-
  classes (or specific values) of "thing"s.

  Furthermore, rf6473 already defined "application" and that this
  particular draft is now defining "device".

  To better impart this information, I would suggest the following
  simple modification

  OLD:
  ...Working Group defined values of "individual", "org", "group", and
  "location" for the KIND property.  Additionally, [RFC6473] has
  defined a value of "application" for the KIND property to represent
  software applications.

  During working group discussion of the document that became
  [RFC6473], consideration was given to defining a more general value
  of "thing", but it was decided to split "thing" into software
  applications and hardware devices and to define only the
  "application" value at that time....

  NEW:
  ...Working Group defined values of "individual", "org", "group", and
  "location" for the KIND property.

  During working group discussion of the document that became
  [RFC6473], consideration was given to defining a more general value
  of "thing", but it was decided to split "thing" into software
  applications and hardware devices and to define only the
  "application" value at that time....

2/ S2, top of page 4: "FN" probably expands to "Full Name".  If it is
  an accepted practice to use "FN" in your domain, then you can leave
  it unexpanded.  If not, then an expansion may help the general reader
  (like me) who may think what "FN" is.  (The rest of the properties
  listed on page 4 and 5 appear to be self-explanatory).

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [e-mail]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/