Subject: [Geopriv] Re: draft-polk-geopriv-location-based-error-registry-00

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:50:54 -0700

Hi James,

Thanks for doing this draft.  I agree it is useful.

------------------------------
Comments:

Regarding the editor's question in Section 3.4 (Unsupported Schema) 
about communicating the desired schema by using unique error codes, 
what about when the recipient is capable of handling a number of 
schemas, just not the one supplied?  It might be better to stick with 
one error code for 'unsupported schema', and maybe include a list of 
supported schemas.  The using protocol is likely to have its own 
mechanism for communicating this, but it might be good to have it in 
the response as well, if there is a way to do so.

------------------------------
Some suggestions:

In Section 1 (Introduction), delete "other" in "other transport protocols".

In Section 2, the text:
    including a malformed Location Object which
    couldn't be parsed by the server to make a routing decision upon

If the server couldn't parse it, that's reason enough.  So you might 
want to delete "to make a routing decision upon" or perhaps add "use 
for a routing decision" as another example.

In Section 3, should 'location generator' be 'location sender'?

In Section 3.5, I think it would read better to move "in a request" 
earlier in the sentence, to just after "provided".

In Section 3.9, maybe say "include a more complete or precise 
position" instead of "verify it has a complete position to convey"?

------------------------------
Some typos:

In Section 2, "by" should be "by a" in "by message routing server".

Also in Section 2, delete "a" in "a Alice's".

In Section 3.6, need "the" in "means location" (should be "means the 
location").

Also in 3.6, the text:
    location
    sender to verify it has indeed included location in the new request

Does this mean the location sender should verify that it did in fact 
include a location in the request?  Or does it mean the sender should 
send a new request, and verify that it (sent in response to the 
error) includes a location?  Either way, the use of "verify" seems 
odd, since we're talking about software behavior.

In Section 3.7, the text:
    or the
    referencable server some other error

Seems garbled.

In Section 3.9, the text:
    A typical reaction to receiving this message is of the sender to
    verify it has a complete position to convey.

"of the" should be "for the".

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