Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:02:07 +0000

Thank you very much for your review.

As you may have seen, I have used your review for my IESG "NO OBJECTION" ballot for this document.

Best regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Int-dir <[email-masked]> on behalf of Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Reply to: Tatuya Jinmei <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, 25 February 2022 at 20:27
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18

    Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei
    Review result: Ready

    I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
    <draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-18.txt>. These comments were written
    primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
    shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments
    from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last
    Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,
    see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

    This draft defines a few optional extensions to the LoST protocol as defined in
    RFC5222 so that the server can provide supplemental information that may be
    useful for the client.  I'm not familiar with the LoST protocol, so it's quite
    possible my review miss something.  With noting that, the draft is very well
    written, its purpose and explanations are clear, and I didn't find any obvious
    problem, especially those related to the INT area.  I think it's ready for
    publication.

    I have a couple of comments, making mostly just out of curiosity.  I'd be happy
    to get clarifications on these points, but these are not blocking issues at all.

    - The definition of similarity (in Section 2) looks loose to me:

       Similar Location:  A suggested civic location that is similar to an
          Invalid Location which was used in a LoST query, but which has one
          or more elements added, modified, or removed such that the
          suggested location is a Valid Location.

      If we apply this definition literally, a completely "different" location
      could be considered to be "similar" as long as it's valid, since all
      editorial operations can be applied for arbitrary times, right?  Perhaps it's
      intentionally kept loose and left to the server implementation and
      discretion, but it would be also nice if it gives some example of what would
      NOT be considered to be similar (for example, what if an element contains a
      misspelling and fixing it would make it valid?).

    - Also related to the above definition, can "Similar Location" be used only
    when the input is invalid?  For example, what if both "6000 15th Avenue
    Northwest" and "6000 15th Avenue Southwest" exist and the input is either of
    them in a complete form, can we include the other as a "Similar Location"?

    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir