Hi Roland, Thank you for addressing my comments. I agree with them.
Best, Ines. On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:50 AM <r.jes...@telekom.de> wrote: > Hi Ines, > Thank you for your review. > I have incoperated your comments within the draft. > > On Question 1 In Section 1 I have changed the last paragraph by adding the > reference of RF64412 as follows: > " This document extends the Geolocation header field of RFC6442, by > allowing an entity adding the locationValue to identity itself using a > hostname. This is done by defining a new geoloc-param header field > parameter, > > Hope this is OK for you. > > Question 2: It is difficult to reference the various architectures for > emergency since each country, based on national regulation rules, may have > it's own architecture. > > Question 3: This apply to the rules defined in RFC6442 in Section 4.4. > > Best Regards > > Roland > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Ines Robles via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. Januar 2020 23:29 > An: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; sipc...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam....@ietf.org > Betreff: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04 > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-locparam-04 > Reviewer: Ines Robles > Review Date: 2020-01-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-27 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > This document proposes for SIP protocol, a new geolocation parameter, the > location-source ("loc-src"), so that an entity adding the locationValue to > Geolocation header field can identify itself using its hostname. > > The document does not present major issues. I have some minor > questions/suggestions at the end. > > Major issues: Not found > > Minor issues: Not found > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 4: "A UA MUST..." it would be nice to expand UA "A User Agent (UA) > MUST..." > > Questions/Suggestions: > > 1- Section 1: I think it would be nice to add explicitly "This document > updates > 6442 by extending the Geolocation header field..." > > 2- Section 3: where it states "There are various architectures defined > f...Each has it own characteristics with corresponding pros and cons...." I > think it would be nice to add a reference/s to it. > > 3- Which Geolocation-Error codes correspond to the situation when the > "loc-scr" > field presents some error, or one LocationValue presents two "loc-src" > fields and the locationValue in both cases is correct? > > Thank you for this document, > > Ines. > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
