Subject: [apps-review] Request for review for December 2

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:21:07 -0800

Hello,

I apologize for sending out the assignments one week late.  I am 
listing the assignments in one email instead of sending them out 
individually.  I would be grateful if the reviews could be posted by 
December 1st.

1. 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control/>: 
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for 
Notification Rate Control

Assigned to Vijay Gurbani

2. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis/>: 
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-based 
Location Configuration Information

Assigned to Claudio Allocchio

3. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd/>: 
DNS-Based Service Discovery

Assigned to Joseph Yee

4. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc/>: RTP 
Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding

Assigned to Glenn Parsons
Alexey requested paying attention to the MIME registration.

5. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy/>: 
Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy 
Preferences for Location Information

Assigned to Henry S. Thompson

6. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-martini-gin/>: 
Registration for Multiple Phone Numbers in the Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP)

Assigned to Enrico Marocco

You can find information about the author and WG in the 
datatracker.  Some previous reviews from the Apps-review Team are 
accessible at 
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-template  The review 
should be sent to apps-discuss, the author, WG Chair and 
document  shepherd, if applicable, and the IESG.  The subject of the 
email when submitting the review should be "apps-team review of draft-name".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:32 +0900

On 2010/11/30 14:21, SM wrote:

> Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences
> for Location Information
>

This is now at -22. I did a review of -21 in late September, and think 
that I sent it to all relevant parties. It is archived at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01813.html. 
I don't remember ever having heard back from the authors.

I'd request that somebody (Alex? SM?) check that my review has reached 
the authors, and that they addressed my points. Looking at 
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-22.txt, I 
don't see any traces of doing that. Section 7.5, Location Obfuscation 
Example, has been added, and in Section 6.5.2, a 'procedure' was 
rewritten as an 'algorithm', although the new text starts with "The 
algorithm proceeds in 6 steps." without saying what "The algorithm" is 
or is supposed to be used for. Other changes are incidental (boiler 
plate, dates,...).

Except for extremely specific and explicitly justified circumstances, it 
seems to be a waste of resources to review two versions of the same 
draft, let alone two consecutive versions, in particular if we don't 
have any confirmation that the first review was seen and acted upon.

Regards,    Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:28:53 +0100 (CET)

> 2. <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis/>: Dynamic 
> Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-based Location 
> Configuration Information
>

well... that's tomorrow ... and I've a set of meetings today.

I'll try, but cannot promise to meet tomorrow's deadline.

> -sm
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-review mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:21:16 -0800

Hi Martin,
At 22:58 29-11-10, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>This is now at -22. I did a review of -21 in 
>late September, and think that I sent it to all 
>relevant parties. It is archived at 

I went through the tracker ( 
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/apps-review-tracker ) and I missed that one.

>I'd request that somebody (Alex? SM?) check that 
>my review has reached the authors, and that they 
>addressed my points. Looking at 
>http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-22.txt, 
>I don't see any traces of doing that. Section 
>7.5, Location Obfuscation Example, has been 
>added, and in Section 6.5.2, a 'procedure' was 
>rewritten as an 'algorithm', although the new 
>text starts with "The algorithm proceeds in 6 
>steps." without saying what "The algorithm" is 
>or is supposed to be used for. Other changes are 
>incidental (boiler plate, dates,...).

Could you post the link to your review together 
with the above comments to apps-discuss with a 
copy to [email-masked] 
(for the authors) and [email-masked]?

>Except for extremely specific and explicitly 
>justified circumstances, it seems to be a waste 
>of resources to review two versions of the same 
>draft, let alone two consecutive versions, in 
>particular if we don't have any confirmation 
>that the first review was seen and acted upon.

Agreed.  That was my mistake as I should have noticed the previous review.

Henry, please ignore the previous request to review draft-ietf-geopriv-policy.

Thanks,
-sm

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:52:01 +0900

> Could you post the link to your review together with the above comments
> to apps-discuss with a copy to [email-masked]

Done.  Regards,   Martin.