I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2007-11-28
IETF LC End Date: 2007-11-29
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed
standard. There are a small number of editorial nits that should be
considered prior to publication.
Comments:
In general this is a nicely readable and understandable draft. I
greatly appreciate the irony in the protocol name, and even more so
the registration of "application/lost+xml" :-)
Be advised that I am not an expert in Relax NG for XML schema
specification, and am therefore assuming someone with a clue has
reviewed or will review the schema in this draft.
idnits has complains about some references:
(See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 4848
(ref. '8')
== Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-06
== Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '11'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '12'
== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-08
== Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
draft-ietf-ecrit-security-threats-04
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-ietf-ecrit-mapping-arch-02
== Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-01
Section 5.2, last paragraph:
"... it is the responsibility of the client to check the 'expires'
attribute... "
Should this be stated normatively?
Section 6, paragraph 3:
"If a query is answered iteratively, the querier includes all servers
that it has already contacted."
Should this be stated normatively?
Section 8.3.1:
"The order of location elements is significant; the server uses the
first location element where it understands the location profile."
Normative?
Section 12, first paragraph:
"To achieve interoperability, this document defines two mandatory-to-
implement baseline location profiles to define the manner in which
location information is transmitted. It is possible to standardize
other profiles in the future. The three baseline profiles are:"
Three, or two?
Section 12.1, second paragraph:
..."server should interpret the XML location data to the best of its
ability
Should "should" be "SHOULD"? :-)
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
