Subject: [Geopriv] review comments on draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-relo-03.txt

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:34:17 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-geopriv- 
relo-03.txt

Overall impression: This was easy to understand, though I was left  
scratching my head in a couple of places.

1) The last paragraph in Section 1 is appreciated and makes a good  
point.  However, the reader has to get to Section 3.2 to understand  
why, which is that the source IP address of the query is the key for  
the location.

2) The url parameter could use a little explaining, as in it is about  
updating the time on a specific URL previously retrieved.  Or that's  
what I gather it is for.

3) Also, the secret parameter needs more explaining.  I'm having  
trouble understanding the use case, specifically how it might be used  
by a third party (not the client and not the LIS) and where.

4) This list of identifiers does not seem to include all that are in  
draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-00.txt.

5) The assert attribute contains an entire PIDF-LO!?  Perhaps you  
need to consider having this interaction work with a POST instead of  
a GET.

6) The parenthetical comment "Since the query does not change the  
state of the resource, GET is the appropriate method." seems to be  
violated quite a bit by a few parameters.

7) The Subscribe header enables subscriptions to location via SIP.   
If a client wants to use SIP, why don't we just define these  
parameters using SIP?  That way there is no need to do this, and the  
client can just talk one protocol.

-andy

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