Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani-location

["Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Brian

Thanks for the evaluation.
Comments embedded. 

Thanks

Rajesh

On 1/23/15, 8:45 AM, "Brian Haberman" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>All,
>     I have performed the usual AD Evaluation of
>draft-ietf-netext-ani-location as a part of the RFC publication process.
> I only have a few comments/questions on this draft that I would like to
>see resolved prior to starting IETF Last Call:
>
>1. I would think that this document should be marked as "Updates RFC
>6757".  Thoughts on this?


This is not making any changes to RFC6757 and so this not updating RFC6757.



>
>2. In Section 3.1, the civic location field is limited to 253 bytes.
>Given that there are civic locations that exceed that length, can you
>provide a brief justification for that limit?

This is a good question. The practical reason for 253 bytes is that the
ANI length field is one byte.
However, the DHCPv4 Civic Location also has a one byte length, so we felt
it was reasonable. 
For longer length, a PIDF location URI could be used (a URI that would
dereference to a location object).
Potentially, we can add text around how the 253 byte limit could be
handled for long civic locations.
  
>
>3. The two sub-sections of Section 4 use 2119 keywords when describing
>implementation details that really do not impact interoperability.
>Unless you want to get into interesting procedural discussions with some
>ADs, I would suggest modifying the text to not use 2119 keywords.

Ok.

>
>Regards,
>Brian
>