Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:33:00 -0600

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2007-11-28	
IETF LC End Date: 2007-11-29

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed  
standard. There are a small number of editorial nits that should be  
considered prior to publication.

Comments:

In general this is a nicely readable and understandable draft. I  
greatly appreciate the irony in the protocol name, and even more so  
the registration of "application/lost+xml"  :-)

Be advised that I am not an expert in Relax NG for XML schema  
specification, and am therefore assuming someone with a clue has  
reviewed or will review the schema in this draft.

idnits has complains about some references:

>      (See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
>      lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4848  
> (ref. '8')
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
>      draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05
>
>   -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '11'
>
>   -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '12'
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
>      draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-08
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-04
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-02
>
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-01
>

Section 5.2, last paragraph:

"... it is the responsibility of the client to check the 'expires'  
attribute... "

Should this be stated normatively?

Section 6, paragraph 3:

"If a query is answered iteratively, the querier includes all servers  
that it has already contacted."

Should this be stated normatively?

Section 8.3.1:

"The order of location elements is significant; the server uses the  
first location element where it understands the location profile."

Normative?

Section 12, first paragraph:

"To achieve interoperability, this document defines two mandatory-to- 
implement baseline location profiles to define the manner in which  
location information is transmitted.  It is possible to standardize  
other profiles in the future.  The three baseline profiles are:"

Three, or two?

Section 12.1, second paragraph:

..."server should interpret the XML location data to the best of its  
ability

Should "should" be "SHOULD"?  :-)

Thanks!

Ben.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art