of a document.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@alcatel-lucent.com]
>Sent: 05 June, 2009 13:38
>To: Hannes Tschofenig; 'James M. Polk'; 'Bernard Aboba';
>geopriv@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Geopriv] -00 Strawman of RFC 3825bis for Review
>
>You get the next version by proposing precise text against the
>listed open issues, or by opening another issue.
>
>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
