On 2010-09-29 at 04:26:30, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Summary: This draft is ready for IETF LC - I'll be requesting that LC
> shortly.
>
> Please consider the following as early LC comments:
>
> The last sentence of (1.1 Applications) is a bare assertion.
> Can you add text or point to more discussion?
Good point. Would this help?
Section 1.1 (last paragraph), ADD:
For instance, a policy rules document could be used to express the agreed policy. Formal policy documents, such as [RFC4745], can be applied in an automated fashion by a LIS.
> The first sentence of the third paragraph of section 2.1
> (Starting "The identifiers described") is very hard to parse.
> Could it be simplified to "The identifiers described in this
> document MUST only be used as inputs for location determination."?
> Can you call out some example applications where it is not ok
> to use these identifiers (helping to motivate the MUST).
That text sounds OK. Actually, since this is just a (poor) paraphrase of RFC 5687, maybe we could instead lift that text:
The LIS MUST be able to use the identifier [...] for location determination.
Would this plagiarism work for you?
> In section 3.5's discussion about ensuring a URI refers to a single
> device, please consider pointing to GRUU.
It was always the intent to use GRUU :)
Section 3.5, OLD:
... For example, a SIP address of record URI can
correspond to a service subscription rather than a single Device.
NEW:
... For example, a SIP address of record URI can
correspond to a service subscription rather than a single Device;
a Globally Routable User Agent URI (GRUU) [RFC5627] might be more
appropriate.
Cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:14:07 +0800
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 29 2010 - 02:14:36 EDT