I believe I have addressed your comments and I have also added some
further text to constraint the functionality in the document further to
avoid interoperability problems.
Here is the latest version that I plan to submit:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/Filters/draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters
-07.txt
Ciao
Hannes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
>[mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Thomson, Martin
>Sent: 13 October, 2009 06:01
>To: Alissa Cooper; GEOPRIV
>Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>
>In my opinion, this document is ready for publication.
>
>I have a few very minor issues, and a bunch of nits. None of
>these are so important that they need to be fixed immediately.
>
>I'm sure that Rohan's affiliation has changed. Last time I
>saw him it certainly wasn't Plantronics.
>
>Title: The "reporting" aspect was long ago removed. I'd
>propose simply:
> Filtering Location Notifications in Presence No need to
>mention PIDF-LO. There might be a need to mention SIP, in
>which case it becomes
> Filtering Location Notifications in Session Initiation
>Protocol (SIP) Presence
>
>Section 1, OLD:
> RFC 3265 can be used with so-called 'filters'...
>NEW:
> SIP events [RFC3265] can be used with filters...
>
>Q: what is "so-called" about them? Is the term not defined in
>RFC 4660? This phrase has negative connotations. (I suspect
>that this is symptomatic of Rohan's views on the filtering
>docs. Not undeserved, but also unnecessary.)
>
>Section 1: Is it worth stating in the introduction that this
>document mixes new mechanisms with documentation of existing
>mechanisms?
>
>Section 1: wayward apostrophe: s/presence event
>package'/presence event package/
>
>Section 3.*: Suggest a better namespace prefix to use in
>examples might be "lf:" rather than the generic "ext:".
>
>Section 3.4: It's unclear what the effect of uncertainty is on
>this. An implementation is asked to make a Boolean decision,
>but not given the necessary tools to ensure that the decision
>it makes is the one that is expected.
>
>Section 3.5:
> For the example above, if the 'exact' attribute was "true", then the
> only possible response is either a "civic" location or an error
> message.
>What does it mean to provide an "error message" in the context
>of being unable to provide the requested location type? In
>this case, I'd suggest:
> s/or an error message./or no location information./
>
>Section 3.6: (This is recent text, so this is actually the
>first time that I've read it.) No specific comment here
>(aside from a wayward period.). However, the example does
>look a little like a wall of text. I can see several
>paragraphs there. Perhaps if this "example" was split into a
>sub-section, there wouldn't be a tendency to try to create the
>ultimate paragraph.
>
>Section 5: I don't think that the third bullet is necessarily
>true. This document doesn't really build in PIDF-LO, but it
>does depend on its format. If, in that fact, there are
>security considerations, I'm not aware of them.
>
>Section 5: Is it worth noting that there are no policies that
>dictate what filters may be used? I tend to object to live
>tracking as a general rule, but am offered no means to control
>this behaviour by watchers (I can tell them not to get
>location, even black out certain areas, but not limit rates).
>Are we satisfied that this document leans on the "local
>policy" crutch in this area?
>
>--Martin
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 October 2009 2:58 AM
>> To: GEOPRIV
>> Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>>
>> This is a GEOPRIV Working Group Last Call for comments on
>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-06)
>>
>> Please send your comments no later than Monday, November 2, 2009.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>this email is prohibited.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>[mf2]
>_______________________________________________
>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
