---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: bernard_aboba@… | Owner: bernard_aboba@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
Component: rfc3825bis | Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
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.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/33>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
