Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 16 Oct 2010

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:56:15 -0500

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101014-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,
Mary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:44:55 -0400

Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-12
     Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for
     Coordinate-based Location Configuration Information
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 16-Oct-2010
IETF LC End Date: 2010-10-25
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

Major issues:

Minor issues:
      I wonder if the recommendation at the end of section 2.2.1.2 on 
Server Version Selection should be strengthened (and the v4 usage 
weakened) a little.  The text current says that when there are known to 
be some v0-only DHCP v4 clients, the v0 should be sent.  It seems to me 
that unless it is known that all clients that use geolocation will 
support v1, then v0 should be sent.  I do understand that this version 
problem is difficult to resolve.

Nits/editorial comments: