[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06
Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net> Thu, 29 November 2007 20:33 UTC
Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixq4O-0004wU-Gw; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:12 -0500
Received: from gen-art by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixq4M-0004wN-Lj for gen-art-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:10 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixq4M-0004wE-Az for gen-art@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:10 -0500
Received: from dsl001-129-069.dfw1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([72.1.129.69] helo=vicuna.estacado.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixq4L-0006hv-QG for gen-art@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:33:10 -0500
Received: from [10.0.1.197] (adsl-68-94-19-8.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [68.94.19.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by vicuna.estacado.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lATKX1Ua083312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:33:05 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@estacado.net)
Message-Id: <66057940-436A-4C49-8735-B611B3C38CC6@estacado.net>
From: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:33:00 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4
Cc: marc.linsner@cisco.com, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, hgs+ecrit@cs.columbia.edu, hardie@qualcomm.com, Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com, andy@hxr.us
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2007-11-28 IETF LC End Date: 2007-11-29 Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. There are a small number of editorial nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: In general this is a nicely readable and understandable draft. I greatly appreciate the irony in the protocol name, and even more so the registration of "application/lost+xml" :-) Be advised that I am not an expert in Relax NG for XML schema specification, and am therefore assuming someone with a clue has reviewed or will review the schema in this draft. idnits has complains about some references: > (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to > lower-maturity documents in RFCs) > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4848 > (ref. '8') > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of > draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of > draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05 > > -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '11' > > -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '12' > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of > draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-08 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of > draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-04 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of > draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-02 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of > draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-01 > Section 5.2, last paragraph: "... it is the responsibility of the client to check the 'expires' attribute... " Should this be stated normatively? Section 6, paragraph 3: "If a query is answered iteratively, the querier includes all servers that it has already contacted." Should this be stated normatively? Section 8.3.1: "The order of location elements is significant; the server uses the first location element where it understands the location profile." Normative? Section 12, first paragraph: "To achieve interoperability, this document defines two mandatory-to- implement baseline location profiles to define the manner in which location information is transmitted. It is possible to standardize other profiles in the future. The three baseline profiles are:" Three, or two? Section 12.1, second paragraph: ..."server should interpret the XML location data to the best of its ability Should "should" be "SHOULD"? :-) Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell