Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 14:24:36 -0500

I have reviewed the document and believe it's almost ready to go.  All
the comments I made on the last WGLC version (-02) have been addressed.
There are however a few new editorial nits and comments summarized
below.
 
Mary.
 
Nits/Comments:
------------------------
 
1) Section 2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, there are two "it"s that
should be clarified. I know what the sentence is intending to say, but's
it's not quite clear to me whether those "it"s are the "requesting
Party" and/or "the Target".  Is my NEW suggestion accurate? 
OLD: 
   In most cases
   the requesting party is the Target itself but it may also be an
   authorized entity that acts on behalf of it, such as a SIP proxy or
   another LIS.
NEW:
   In most cases
   the requesting party is the Target itself but the requesting party
may also be an
   authorized entity that acts on behalf of the Target, such as a SIP
proxy or
   another LIS.
 
2) Section 4:
 
2.1) 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: either remove the "in" from the phrase
"in access network" or add a "the" -> "in the access network"
 
2.2) Redirect Rule section, 2nd paragraph: "extend" -> "extent".  Also,
I'm not sure this whole paragraph and reference to a Router Alert bit
are absolutely necessary, but I may have missed the past discussion as
to why this was added.
 
3) Section 7: Security. This statement isn't quite accurate as we
updated the HELD security to be independent of the barnes-security
document. Thus, I think that reference should be removed from this
document and just refer to HELD's security section, something like the
following (although, I don't have strong objections if you all want to
just keep that reference and not make it specific to HELD) :
 
OLD:
   A discussion
   about security aspects of the HELD protocol when used in the GEOPRIV
   architecture when applied to certain usage environments, such as
   emergency services, can be found in [23].
 
NEW:
    The security aspects of the HELD protocol when used in the GEOPRIV
   architecture can be found in [23].
 
You actually don't have a HELD reference, which you should even for the
OLD text, but I think you can just replace that [23] reference with
HELD.
 
4) Just a reminder to check IDNITs. WIth this version, it's complaining
about the following:
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ecrit-requirements has been published
as
     RFC 5012

  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-base has been published as RFC
5201
 
It also complains about the RFC 2119 reference, but I've seen that in
other cases and it's never been clear to me why it's fussing. 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:27 PM
To: GEOPRIV
Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt

This is a GEOPRIV WG Last Call for comments on
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-07.txt

Please send your comments to the editors and/or list by May 16.

If you believe this document is ready to go as is, please send a note to
the list saying so.

If we end up with a lot of discussion on the two documents currently in
IETF Last Call, we will extend
the last call deadline for this draft.

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