Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART (telechat) review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-18

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:53:39 +0000

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-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-18
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2013-02-07
IETF LC End Date: 2013-02-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

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

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

In Section 1: the first reference to URI needs a Normative reference. 
The whole document is about passing URIs and they are not defined anywhere.

In Section 3.2: "data:" URI needs an Informative reference (RFC 2397).

In the same section I see:

    o Section 3.3 IANA registers acceptable location URI schemes (or
      types) for use by this specification. Clients MUST reject URI
      schemes not currently registered in IANA.

The last sentence looks wrong. Firstly, you already restrict the list of 
acceptable URIs to the list specified in Section 3.3. Secondly, what 
does this requirement mean exactly? Is the client required to fetch the 
list of registered URIs from iana.org (I hope not)? I suggest just 
deleting the last sentence.

In Section 3.3: all media types mentioned (two?) need Normative references.

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:40:52 -0600

At 04:53 AM 2/7/2013, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
>
>Major issues: None
>
>Minor issues:
>
>In Section 1: the first reference to URI needs a Normative 
>reference. The whole document is about passing URIs and they are not 
>defined anywhere.

which RFC would you like me to reference?

>In Section 3.2: "data:" URI needs an Informative reference (RFC 2397).

done

>The last sentence looks wrong. Firstly, you already restrict the 
>list of acceptable URIs to the list specified in Section 3.3. 
>Secondly, what does this requirement mean exactly? Is the client 
>required to fetch the list of registered URIs from iana.org (I hope 
>not)? I suggest just deleting the last sentence.

removed

>In Section 3.3: all media types mentioned (two?) need Normative references.

done

James

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:00:36 -0500

>> In Section 1: the first reference to URI needs a Normative reference. The
>> whole document is about passing URIs and they are not defined anywhere.
>

RFC 3986 is the canonical reference for URIs.

Barry

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:20:43 -0600

At 04:40 PM 2/7/2013, James Polk wrote:
>>reference. The whole document is about passing URIs and they are 
>>not defined anywhere.
>

Thanks to Barry (pointing me towards RFC 3986), this one is now done.