we had a discussion on the GEOPRIV list with Ben and we came to a
conclusion on the issues. We have incorporated the issues into the draft.
Ben, could you please confirm?
Ciao
Hannes
------
Discuss (2010-03-10)
The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 9 March 2010 raised some concerns
that ought to be addressed before this document is approved, and I have
summarized them below.
(1) Section 3.6 seems to create a profile of the rate-control
document, but minor modifications to the normative requirements
are made. Can you motivate why rate-control does not work as-is?
If not, perhaps the two documents should be harmonized.
(2) The empty notify language in the 2nd paragraph of Section 3.6
seems to conflict with the MUST statements in rate-control
document:
>
> ... depending on the event package and subscriber
> preferences indicated in the SUBSCRIBE request, the NOTIFY request
> MUST contain either the current full state or the partial state
> showing the difference between the current state and the last
> successfully communicated state.
>
This also indicates that the two documents should be harmonized.
(3) In Section 3.2, first paragraph after figure 2, the text effectively
declares the example as normative, but fails to offer normative text.
Also, the "No other variant" language is confusing; it is not clear
what restriction in the example is constrains <ns-binding>. Please
make the examples informative and provide normative text.
Comment (2010-03-10)
The Gen-ART Review by Ben Campbell on 9 March 2010 raised some concerns
that are not included in my DISCUSS position. Please consider them.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
