Bernard and the chairs tell me that this is ready to go again - I've requested IETF Last Call.
Please consider the following early IETF LC comments:
Comment:
This document doesn't capture the issues with the version 0 DHCPv4
option that we discussed in Philadelphia.
(See <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/71/slides/geopriv-2/geopriv-2.htm>).
It may not need to, since it is not trying to specify using the version 0
DHCPv4 option to return an area covering another area. However, given the
amount of conversation that went into understanding the limitation, some
text explaining it seems warranted. It would also help motivate _why_ there
is now a version 1. (That said, there is text in section 1.2 that could
be read to say a version 0 response could cover an arbitrary region to
a desired level of precision - that text should be adjusted to make it
clear that's not what's being claimed).
Nits:
Section 2.4 should call out that it is defining AType values.
In this section (and elsewhere in the document), the older "AT"
tag in the prose should be changed to use the "AType" tag in the
new format layout.
The last equation in section 2.4.5 has x on both sides. I suspect
log2(x) should have been log2(Uncertainty)
Please double-check the XML templates - there are a few spurious semicolons.
