[sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-05: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                   *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly *
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Benjamin Schwartz <[e-mail]>:

Benjamin would have balloted *YES* on this document.

## Section 1

Typo: “to identity itself”

Purpose: “How the entity adding the locationValue to the header field obtains
the location information is out of scope of this document.” -> OK, but if this
document isn’t intending to change the semantic intent of the Geolocation
header, then it should say so.  In the current text, it’s hard to tell whether
the field indicates the location of the endpoint or the intermediary.  Some
text like “this parameter does not alter the subject of the locationValue”
would help.

## Section 7

“If such trust domain is not given, it is strongly recommended to delete the
location information.” -> Is this consistent with the example in Figure 2?  I
think this is worth clarifying in the example text.