was submitting it for publication, and had a few brief comments.
Given that we're past WGLC, consider these an advance contribution to
the IETF LC :)
Comment 1:
The document is unclear about whether or not the lat/lon values SHOULD
or MUST be constrained to +-90 / +- 180.
-- v4 option format says SHOULD for both
-- Section 2.3 says MUST for lat, SHOULD for lon
-- v6 option format doesn't specify
I would suggest changing all of these to MUST, unless you're keeping
the option formats open to allow for them to be redefined by different
datums.
Comment 2:
In Section 2.2.1.2, it might be helpful to note that if a v0-only
client does ignore the datum element and accept the option, then it is
probably going to interpret it as WGS84, and thus at least get correct
coordinate values, as long as the server sends WGS84.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
