Thanks!
Ben.
On Mar 27, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> 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
