Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-05

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:31:12 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-05
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Oct-28-2010
IETF LC End Date: unknown
IESG Telechat date: Nov-11-2010

Summary: This draft is ready as an Proposed Standard.
Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 0
Nits/editorial comments: 2

Nits:

1) S1.1, paragraph one.  Suggested change below to make the intent
clear.  I am assuming that in the absence of your draft, the identity
of the requester is simply the source IP address.

OLD:
    If device identity is present, the identity of the requester is
    not used to identify the subject of the request.

NEW:
    If device identity is present, the identity of the requester in the
    form of the source IP address is not used to identify the subject
    of the request.

2) S2, opening paragraph.  I am not sure why the note to differentiate
identifiers from measurement information (maybe the WG deliberated on
this and decided to put this text in there; if so, please disregard
my comment.)  It seems to me that the using the IP address as an
identifier is what causes confusion with measurement information, yes?
The same IP can be re-assigned to another device once a DHCP lease
is up.  If that is indeed the case, please consider making it explicit.

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:36:22 +0800

Thanks Vijay,

>     form of the source IP address is not used to identify the subject

I'll add that to the next revision, thanks.
 
> is up.  If that is indeed the case, please consider making it explicit.

The list of "identifiers" in RFC 5687 is longer than this allows for.  This offers an explanation for the shortfall.  The separation of identity and measurement concepts came a little later.

Cheers,
Martin

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:45:03 -0500

On 10/28/2010 09:36 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> The list of "identifiers" in RFC 5687 is longer than this allows for.
> This offers an explanation for the shortfall.  The separation of
> identity and measurement concepts came a little later.

Martin: I noticed that as well ... it is just that for someone
reading S2, the juxtaposition of measurement information with
identifiers does not quite make sense.  Maybe you can provide
some insight by a short sentence or so.  Or maybe I will re-look
at the offending section tomorrow when I am not as sleep deprived
and see if some clarifying text makes itself apparent.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:21:30 -0500

> and see if some clarifying text makes itself apparent.

Martin: I finally got some time to look into S2.  Here is
my suggested changes to make S2 read better.

OLD:

    Identifiers are used as the starting point in location determination.
    They should not be confused with measurement information
    ([I-D.thomson-geopriv-held-measurements]).  Measurement information
    is information about a Device and the time varying details of its
    network attachment.  Identifiers might be associated with a different
    Device over time, but their purpose is to identify the Device, not to
    describe its environment or network attachment.

NEW:

    Identifiers are used as the starting point in location determination.
    Identifiers might be associated with a different Device over time,
    but their purpose is to identify the Device, not to describe its
    environment or network attachment.

Unless you have a strong reason to juxtapose measurement information in
this paragraph, you are better off leaving it out completely.  This is,
of course, my two cents as a generalist reviewer; however, I did read
portions of I-D.thomson-geopriv-held-measurements and at least I could
not see the need to refer to measurement in the above paragraph.  Your
mileage may vary, of course, so please use my input in the most
relevant manner that you can (including feeling free to discard it.)

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 07:10:58 +0800

On 2010-10-30 at 11:21:30, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> this paragraph, you are better off leaving it out completely.  

Good job.  I'll happily do that.