Re: [paws] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-paws-protocol-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: paws@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D461A0380; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
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 Fn0o2fQJnMVo; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C621A034A; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149D71B8915; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B959353E074; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:24:36 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABEV9RN-yzaW885FJZaVArEECbb9-WOOfBdMZmg1x-1K9D6qfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:23:32 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <3DEACA43-3605-4C6D-98FE-232D2B8644DD@nominum.com>
References: <20140821133025.17118.4987.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABEV9RMX6DPBCmao5owW3ajrNchnWCzRPR2=PCVU=1WYSMdxYg@mail.gmail.com> <8E8E5E78-4755-4889-8B8A-B804D30155C9@nominum.com> <CABEV9ROXdJnhY1M-NcAJeHyRQx+N08ZDXFKFRzTPcGuCN3gF0Q@mail.gmail.com> <30C11DC7-3D85-4B80-84F8-5EEB637ABD2F@nominum.com> <2AB0D28E-27E3-455C-AF2D-9352A8D649C3@nominum.com> <CABEV9RN-yzaW885FJZaVArEECbb9-WOOfBdMZmg1x-1K9D6qfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vincent Chen <vchen@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/paws/5TuA8juWgbLlwkl-krLHgvf95zI
Cc: "paws@ietf.org" <paws@ietf.org>, "paws-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <paws-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-paws-protocol@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [paws] Ted Lemon's Discuss on draft-ietf-paws-protocol-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: paws@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" <paws.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/paws>, <mailto:paws-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/paws/>
List-Post: <mailto:paws@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:paws-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws>, <mailto:paws-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:24:38 -0000

On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:27 AM, Vincent Chen <vchen@google.com> wrote:
>       If the Database does not support the device or any of the rulesets
>       specified in the DeviceDescriptor, it MUST instead return an error
>       with the UNSUPPORTED (Table 1) code in the error response.

Okay, thanks.   Unfortunately "any" here is ambiguous as with the previous use.   You should either say "supports none of the rulesets" or "does not support one or more of the rulesets" depending on which you mean.

The other points appear either to have been addressed, or else you've proposed to address them in the next version, so please go ahead and spin that when the time is right and I will re-check.

Thanks!