Subject: [Geopriv] Brief comments on rfc3825bis

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:07:49 -0400

Just did a brief read-through of draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis as I  
was submitting it for publication, and had a few brief comments.   
Given that we're past WGLC, consider these an advance contribution to  
the IETF LC :)

Comment 1:
The document is unclear about whether or not the lat/lon values SHOULD  
or MUST be constrained to +-90 / +- 180.
-- v4 option format says SHOULD for both
-- Section 2.3 says MUST for lat, SHOULD for lon
-- v6 option format doesn't specify
I would suggest changing all of these to MUST, unless you're keeping  
the option formats open to allow for them to be redefined by different  
datums.

Comment 2:
In Section 2.2.1.2, it might be helpful to note that if a v0-only  
client does ignore the datum element and accept the option, then it is  
probably going to interpret it as WGS84, and thus at least get correct  
coordinate values, as long as the server sends WGS84.