[Geojson] Resolution of last reviewers comments
Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com> Thu, 23 June 2016 03:08 UTC
Return-Path: <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: geojson@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geojson@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7678D12DE2F
for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.com
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 I3dMP6wtOxta for <geojson@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA92D12DEE6
for <geojson@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id c2so57929967vkg.1
for <geojson@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=WiEkMGVbT6BN48fpGq6fd3DEvIb2oSFfz110OOyGnYo=;
b=w+pkefE0yKZMOXm0DF6cwHRK9ZSFZDO/0ZMY7SBipZvN7supEHdmJMOSkMsiHJr51c
/FZvgkMqgKHVA5AdZ+dyoiX3tPlb0utfiGBgmN27zz3v6pVPoW67XyeJXBFEttS3WBih
OzLjCovWyJYpuBzt+QVLYGxKWWp/kE2nF7XXoYGvEjIKqxR3f5yz6HH7u+c19Y4n4miT
RJP4NbMVL+tRUM8bqvs+o5tSIwqrmZ3KIqhyinvSaxYRbXt3pIQeVww1qZqn/R+yrri7
UHYNOAwZje0sBjicEBpjfYafhSK7GRv2mxLsDNMjOfGFT2VjkdA7hchBPTxGbTI3irn4
3vDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=WiEkMGVbT6BN48fpGq6fd3DEvIb2oSFfz110OOyGnYo=;
b=leoAbY09IQlcPJwjzgHrbRe3ReR1naROk8vv6iaLxfdaR/rBdXl6BhU5HrrYRrnYiK
2pf6rgu9q6H5ZDpc9KiyRd17LsxOoLDoKfU3bkmfWqumXGaDcv1XXeZpR58vi2J6c95h
DhaLBlY5YnpE8ylPgsUP17ekPNNwsOvgqQKXIpgELZorPRgn6JgBWHu6owFFXmWfPiNF
ptdJN5lovqcUbSg0fyRTw9rT9BSS/WeT3dMm59ZRsfCFoVuAJlcyB82CGivFAfG3LjD9
+V4m5ugK11j6g6nYuGZ3MrDQlQd0nsTVVmU2KbKiOiEtiZHDKf+AptAs1PZ0SioRxBkW
jMyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIp+Yi3lFUIbah7Jom145xHTcsf2MstQcpiCtYGoqrYGiJJpU7Bmec342zmHBeBRyeLSPZkIxvh8GAiBg==
X-Received: by 10.31.201.194 with SMTP id z185mr14503366vkf.13.1466651313441;
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.94.196 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:08:32 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOodmJrm=8weYHETDskuDnE149=1a2djQ2bcUWRg9j66EGTmUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: geojson@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114dde848c19690535e95e95
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/Dyy_93u-Tc4Vswf0gp0uS_aschM>
Subject: [Geojson] Resolution of last reviewers comments
X-BeenThere: geojson@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF GeoJSON WG <geojson.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/geojson>,
<mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/geojson/>
List-Post: <mailto:geojson@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geojson>,
<mailto:geojson-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:08:36 -0000
Dear all, At https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/issues/222 I have a list of pull requests that try to resolve the last reviewer comments. #226 is the one I'm the least sure about, it turns into a rabbit hole because research on anonymity and de-anonymization attacks is quite active. #227 makes the greatest number of changes, but they are all of a kind: changing "MUST have" and "MUST be" to "has" and "is" whenever we're defining objects and not stating requirements. I'd like to merge these soon so we can upload version -04 and get it to the RFC Editor. If you have objections or concerns, comment on here or on the tickets right away. -- Sean Gillies
- Re: [Geojson] Resolution of last reviewers commen… Martin Thomson
- [Geojson] Resolution of last reviewers comments Sean Gillies