Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Protocol Action: 'Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses Configuration Information' to Proposed Standard

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:52:51 -0800

Brian,

> This change appears to eliminate the definition of the HNS field.  I'm sure
> this was not intended.  I don't see this text repeated somewhere else, so
> I'm not sure what the change was intended to accomplish.  

Table 1 contains all the CaTypes and their definitions.  HNS is listed
there with its definition.  A subset of CaTypes (not all) are called
out in text in Section 3.4 and given some additional explanation.
The reason for deleting the called out bit on HNS was that it
was pointed out that it was incorrect.  It said that HNS translated to
"house number" when it was supposed to be "house number suffix" and
then it said something about the field that did not make much sense.

The definition in the table already states what you suggest for the 
replacement text.

> These are substantive changes to the document.  Why were these changes not
> discussed in the work group?  I'm particularly concerned about the change
> that says "don't use this until we give you some more guidance on
> deployment".  This text is not part of the geo option, and it passed IESG
> review despite the same concerns being applicable to both documents.  The
> new text also does not discuss the difficulty with sending both geo and
> civic, which is at least as important as the issues raised.

The change does not say "don't use this" - it says use this for emergency
service only with guidelines from emergency service work such as developed 
by ECRIT.  That is substantially different.  The change just lines it up
with the GEOPRIV charter and with the nature of this work, which is
to offer an object for a using protocol.  It clarifies the nature of 
the document, the same way that the IESG clarified the geo config option 
earlier, making sure it was clear that it was a configuration/sighting
option and not a location object.  That IESG clarification also took place
at a late stage.

Allison

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv