Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-17

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:17:32 +0000

Claudio: thank you very much for this review! I have balloted No Objection to this document.

Francesca

From: Claudio Allocchio via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sunday, 6 February 2022 at 22:56
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-17
Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio
Review result: Ready with Issues

The document does not have major issues, so it can be considered "ready".
However the way the document is written is often very narrative, instead of
preferring schemas, diagrams etc. and this can sometimes confuse the
implementer while reading it. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

- the abstract can be shortened just to specify directly why we need this
extension - there are in section 3 cases where the sentence id a double
negative (a MUST NOT followed by a negative sentence). They are correct, but
may I suggest to turn them into a single positive (a MUST and a positive
sentence to follow) ? - a "query", "response" etc flow schema may help in
making sections 3 less narrative and more easy to read - all examples are just
"US centric" (e.g. using US style postal addresses): I would suggest
considering also examples take from other different postal addresses schema,
both to show how they fit into the schema itself - there are some typos/nits to
fix with a proof reading

all the best