Subject: [Geopriv] Comments on HELD-03

From: "Arolick, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:54:40 -0500

Below are comments on draft 3 of HELD. Most are suggestions for
readability or clarity and also to be more explicit and consistent in
the wording. I apologize if any are duplicates of comments received from
others.

Eric Arolick

 - First paragraph of Introduction, the second sentence is awkward -
suggest moving the phrase that starts with "such as" at the end of the
sentence to the middle of the sentence after the words "access network",
since this is what is being referred to. As it reads now, the first
impression is that "such as ..." is related to "location information".

- Last paragraph of Section 3 - Should there be a reference to the
identity-extensions document? - Or perhaps some general text that alerts
the reader that the base protocol described in this document may be
extended by other documents?

- Section 4.1.2 - In the first sentence, it seems that the word
"accurate" could lead to misinterpretation. What is the measure of
accuracy that the LIS should use to determine if it should provide
location information? Maybe replace with "correct" or "appropriate" or
reword to describe that the LIS should not return location when certain
conditions are recognized.

- Section 4.1.2 - To perhaps make the section more clear, remove the
last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the
second paragraph. Start the second sentence of the second paragraph with
"To recognize these conditions, the LIS operator ..." Then combine into
1 paragraph.

- Section 6, Table - The table should indicate that PIDF-LO is an
optional component in the Response message.

- Section 6, Table - The table should not indicate that the code
parameter is included in the location response message. According to
Section 6.3, code is only used for errors.

- Section 6.1 - This section has a lot of explanatory text but never
explicitly states the requirement for the protocol. Suggest adding at
the beginning - "The responseTime parameter MAY be included in a
location request message. When included, the possible value is either a
decimal seconds value, or a value of emergencyRouting or
emergencyDispatch." Then remove "is optional and" from the current first
sentence.

- Section 6.2 - Skip a line before the list of possible values. For the
"any" parameter, remove the second sentence. To be consistent with the
language of the previous section, include the following sentence after
the sentence that ends with "location URI" - "If the locationType
parameter is absent, this value MUST be assumed as the default."

- Section 6.2 - For locationURI, as has been pointed out in other
documents, there are two kinds of references. A reference can point to a
fixed location at the time the reference is created (i.e. snapshot URI)
or will return the current location at the time of de-referencing. Since
the capability for the requestor to indicate what it wants is not part
of this document, what kind should the LIS return? This document should
describe the default kind of reference the LIS will return, or at least
describe that there are two types and that it is left to the LIS to
decide what type will be returned.

- Section 6.2 - Suggest replacing the last 2 sentences of the paragraph
after the list of values that describe the "exact" parameter with - "The
location types the LIS returns also depends on the setting of the
optional "exact" attribute, as described in the following section."

- Section 6.2.1 - Start the section with " The "exact" attribute MAY be
included in a locationRequest when the locationType parameter is
included."

- Section 6.5 - Is the meaning of "scheme" in the context it is used in
the second paragraph well known? I think some further explanatory text
would help clarify what is meant.

- Section  6.5.1 - Remove "optional" from the first sentence. As the
last sentence indicates, expires is not optional, it is conditionally
required.

- Section 7 - Should the XML schema indicate that PIDF-LO may be
included in a Location Response?

 

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