[Geojson] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-geojson-03: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-geojson-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For the most part, this is clear and readable. I only have a few
comments:

- I agree with Stephen's comments.

- I note several instances of 2119 "MUST" in what looks to me like
definitions, rather than requirements. For example, 'For type
"MultiPoint", the "coordinates" member MUST be an array of positions.' If
that is a choice among options, and you want to make sure implementers do
the right thing, then MUST makes sense. On the other hand, if that is
really a definitions (e.g. "... the coordinates member is an array of
positions"), then MUST is not appropriate. (For the record, I'm not sure
which case these fall into.)

- Abstract:  If I understand correctly, the document only allows a single
coordinate system. That’s stronger than “recommends”.

- 1.3: Does this document become the authoritative spec? That is, will
people need to pay attention to GJ2008 at all after this is published? if
not, then maybe "obsoletes" is the correct word. (Recognizing of course
that IETF procedure words may not quite apply here.)

- 3.1.6, 4th bullet: Why SHOULD? Can you imagine situations where it
would be reasonable to not follow the right-hand rule?