Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-19.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-19.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<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.

Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published but I have a few 
comments.

Minor
=====

* Section 3.2

It is not clear to me why the NAS receives and echoes back the 
Basic-Location-Policy-Rules and Extended-Location-Policy-Rules 
Attributes from the Access-Challenge, especially since these are opaque 
to the NAS.

* Section 4.2

- Does not define the values of the Code field. This is explained later 
in Section 4.3. It may be better to move the definition into this Section

- This text does not read very well

     Index (16 bits):

       The 16-bit unsigned integer value allows this attribute
       to provide information relating to the information included
       in the Location-Data Attribute to which it refers (via the Index).

I recommend rephrasing it to something like

     Index (16 bits):

       This is a 16-bit unsigned integer value that is used to identify
       the corresponding Location-Data Attribute(with the same index).

* Section 4.7

The numerical values of the types of location are enclosed in single 
quotes like this. e.g. for CIVIC_LOCATION

"A numerical value of this token is '1'."

This is confusing because earlier use of this quoted text (Operator 
namespace ID) '1' refers to the numeric value 0x31. I feel it is better 
to remove the quotes in this section.

* IANA Considerations

- Replace "Operations Area Director" with "Operations Area Directors"

- The IANA guidance for section 8.6 is fuzzy. It is not at all clear 
from this section that the next value to allocate is 64,128... (This is 
clear to me from reading section 4.7). Wouldn't it be a better idea to 
redefine this field to be a set of 32 numbered bit flags and assign a 
meaning to each one of them?

Editorial
=========

* Replace reference to RFC3041 with one to RFC4941 that obsoletes RFC3041.

*
Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf