Correct. There are a number of DISCUSS positions that will be resolved by -08. I haven't read all the DISCUSS material yet, but I expect that there will need to be a few more edits to catch the rest of them. I'll have to coordinate with Richard to determine when to ship -08. I don't want to interfere with AD reviews.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, 11 June, 2013 22:45 > To: Suresh Krishnan > Cc: [email protected]; General Area > Review Team > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held- > measurements-07.txt > > Thank you very much for the review, Suresh. I followed your discussion with > Martin, and the conclusions seem correct to me. But I don't think we should > approve the draft until the -08 appears. Martin? > > Jari > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Suresh Krishnan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before > > posting a new version of the draft. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07.txt > > Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan > > Review Date: 2013/06/10 > > IESG Telechat date: 2013/06/13 > > > > > > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed > > Standard, but I had a few minor comments as identified in my last call > > review dated 2013/05/08. The authors had agreed to fix the following > > issues but I have not seen an updated draft yet. > > > > Minor > > ===== > > > > * Section 5.2 > > > > - The Interface-Id option is the DHCPv6 equivalent of the circuit > > identifier defined in RFC3046. Please add a reference to Section 22.18 > > of RFC3315 that describes this option. > > > > - Is there any specific reason that the giaddr is being specified > > using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format? From my reading giaddr is > > of type bt:ipAddressType and it allows specification of both IPv4 and > > IPv6 addresses natively. > > > > * Section 8.7 Page 53 > > > > I think there may be an off-by-one error here. > > > > <xs:maxInclusive value="268435456"/> > > > > Shouldn't this be > > > > <xs:maxInclusive value="268435455"/> > > > > so that the largest value will fit in 28 bits? > > > > Thanks > > Suresh > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
