Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:04 AM
> To: 'James M. Polk'; 'Bernard Aboba'; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
>
> I am looking forward to the next version.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> >Sent: 05 June, 2009 11:52
> >To: Hannes Tschofenig; 'Bernard Aboba'; geopriv@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
> >
> >Hannes
> >
> >Please re-read what Richard said about this -- (paraphrasing)
> >
> > "the -00 version of this doc will be the text from RFC 3825
> > *with* the new boilerplate, and that's all."
> >
> >-01 and beyond will have changed text, based on WG consensus of what
> >needs to be changed (i.e., Alissa's 6 items, at least).
> >
> >James
> >
> >At 02:54 AM 6/5/2009, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> >>Hi Bernard,
> >>
> >>the only a few comments at this point in time.
> >>
> >>I cannot find the person(s) that have brought up the issue,
> tried to
> >>convince the working group that there is a problem for
> years and have
> >>submitted documents to explain the issue anywhere in the document
> >>(neither as author(s), contributor(s) nor anything else).
> >>
> >>That cannot be right.
> >>
> >>I don't see the guys who implemented this specification (based on
> >>Martin's
> >>clarifications) listed in the document either. We should
> acknowledge
> >>their work a bit more ("Remember: Rough consensus and
> RUNNING CODE")
> >>given that they are the poor folks who had to decipher our
> mysterious
> >>specifications and very likely spent a lot of time doing so.
> >>
> >>Ciao
> >>Hannes
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>
> >> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> >>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> >> Sent: 05 June, 2009 08:06
> >> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
> >>
> >>
> >> Starting from the text of RFC 3825, I have produced
> >a strawman
> >>-00 draft of RFC 3825bis:
> >>
> >>http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/GEOPRIV/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc38
> >25bis-00.
> >>txt
> >>
> >> Comments welcome.
> >>
> >> Other than the editorial changes outlined in
> Appendix B, the
> >>basis of the -00 strawman is RFC 3825, so that no technical
> >differences should
> >>have been introduced. Just to make sure, I have compared
> >the text to RFC
> >>3825 line by line.
> >>
> >> The -00 strawman generates no errors or warings
> >when reviewed
> >>by the ID-NITS tool (see below).
> >>
> >> On checking the URLs provided in the Reference
> section, two
> >>questions arose:
> >>
> >> a. EPSG. One of the URLs given for the EPSG now
> resolves to
> >>the IHS site map:
> >>
> >> http://www.ihsenergy.com/epsg/geodetic2.html
> >>
> >> Does this URL need to be updated, removed or left as is?
> >>
> >> b. WGS 84. There is no longer a web site
> configured at the
> >>cited
> >>URL:
> >> http://www.wgs84.com/
> >>
> >> Is there an updated URL available?
> >>
> >> ===========================================
> >> ID-NITS output
> >>
> >> idnits 2.11.11
> >>
> >> tmp/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-00.txt:
> >>
> >> Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the
> >IETF Trust (see
> >> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >> No issues found here.
> >>
> >> Checking nits according to
> >>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >> No issues found here.
> >>
> >> Checking nits according to
> >http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >> No issues found here.
> >>
> >> Miscellaneous warnings:
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >> -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
> work, but
> >>was first
> >> submitted on or after 10 November 2008. Does
> it really
> >>need the
> >> disclaimer?
> >>
> >>
> >> Checking references for intended status:
> Proposed Standard
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------
> >>-----
> >>
> >> (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using
> >>normative references
> >> to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> >>
> >> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative
> >reference: ref. 'EPSG'
> >>
> >> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative
> >reference: ref. 'WGS84'
> >>
> >>
> >> Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 3
> >comments (--).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Geopriv mailing list
> >>Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
