Re: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review

You get the next version by proposing precise text against the listed open issues, or by opening another issue.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:04 AM
> To: 'James M. Polk'; 'Bernard Aboba'; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
> 
> I am looking forward to the next version.  
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> >Sent: 05 June, 2009 11:52
> >To: Hannes Tschofenig; 'Bernard Aboba'; geopriv@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
> >
> >Hannes
> >
> >Please re-read what Richard said about this -- (paraphrasing)
> >
> >         "the -00 version of this doc will be the text from RFC 3825
> >         *with* the new boilerplate, and that's all."
> >
> >-01 and beyond will have changed text, based on WG consensus of what 
> >needs to be changed (i.e., Alissa's 6 items, at least).
> >
> >James
> >
> >At 02:54 AM 6/5/2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >>Hi Bernard,
> >>
> >>the only a few comments at this point in time.
> >>
> >>I cannot find the person(s) that have brought up the issue, 
> tried to 
> >>convince the working group that there is a problem for 
> years and have 
> >>submitted documents to explain the issue anywhere in the document 
> >>(neither as author(s), contributor(s) nor anything else).
> >>
> >>That cannot be right.
> >>
> >>I don't see the guys who implemented this specification (based on 
> >>Martin's
> >>clarifications) listed in the document either. We should 
> acknowledge 
> >>their work a bit more ("Remember: Rough consensus and 
> RUNNING CODE") 
> >>given that they are the poor folks who had to decipher our 
> mysterious 
> >>specifications and very likely spent a lot of time doing so.
> >>
> >>Ciao
> >>Hannes
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>
> >>         From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org 
> >>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> >>         Sent: 05 June, 2009 08:06
> >>         To: geopriv@ietf.org
> >>         Subject: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
> >>
> >>
> >>         Starting from the text of RFC 3825, I have produced
> >a strawman
> >>-00 draft of RFC 3825bis:
> >>
> >>http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/GEOPRIV/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc38
> >25bis-00.
> >>txt
> >>
> >>         Comments welcome.
> >>
> >>         Other than the editorial changes outlined in 
> Appendix B, the 
> >>basis of the -00 strawman is RFC 3825, so that no technical
> >differences should
> >>have been introduced.   Just to make sure, I have compared 
> >the text to RFC
> >>3825 line by line.
> >>
> >>         The -00 strawman  generates no errors or warings
> >when reviewed
> >>by the ID-NITS tool (see below).
> >>
> >>         On checking the URLs provided in the Reference 
> section, two 
> >>questions arose:
> >>
> >>         a. EPSG.  One of the URLs given for the EPSG now 
> resolves to 
> >>the IHS site map:
> >>
> >>         http://www.ihsenergy.com/epsg/geodetic2.html
> >>
> >>         Does this URL need to be updated, removed or left as is?
> >>
> >>         b. WGS 84.  There is no longer a web site 
> configured at the 
> >>cited
> >>URL:
> >>         http://www.wgs84.com/
> >>
> >>         Is there an updated URL available?
> >>
> >>         ===========================================
> >>         ID-NITS output
> >>
> >>         idnits 2.11.11
> >>
> >>         tmp/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-00.txt:
> >>
> >>           Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the
> >IETF Trust (see
> >>           http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >>              No issues found here.
> >>
> >>           Checking nits according to
> >>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >>              No issues found here.
> >>
> >>           Checking nits according to
> >http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >>              No issues found here.
> >>
> >>           Miscellaneous warnings:
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >>           -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 
> work, but 
> >>was first
> >>              submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does 
> it really 
> >>need the
> >>              disclaimer?
> >>
> >>
> >>           Checking references for intended status: 
> Proposed Standard
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >>              (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using 
> >>normative references
> >>              to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> >>
> >>           -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative
> >reference: ref. 'EPSG'
> >>
> >>           -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative
> >reference: ref. 'WGS84'
> >>
> >>
> >>              Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 3
> >comments (--).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Geopriv mailing list
> >>Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 