Comment(by bernard_aboba@…):
[James Polk] with a negative number.
This was in RFC3825, but I cannot find it in this document now, which is
an oversight on (at least) my part.
>Should 2.4.3 mention how to represent this?
probably correct with the section this should be in
>Should Appendix B include such an example?
it could
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>1) section 1, paragraph 4 says "The DHCP server could correlate the
>Circuit-ID with the geographic location where the
> identified circuit terminates (such as the location of the wall
>jack)." Would it be the job of the DHCP server to do this correlation?
>I would assume it was a NM application function to do such
>correlation.
I believe the operative word above is "could". The server could also just
forward what it was given by a Location Server (probably vs. a NM server)
towards the client without changing what it was given. Do you believe this
should be clearer?
>2) In 2.2.1.2, s/same response. This is not useful since/same response,
>since/
--
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: bernard_aboba@… | Owner: bernard_aboba@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: draft-ietf-geopriv-3825bis
Component: rfc3825bis | Version: 1.0
Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords:
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/trac/ticket/41#comment:1>
geopriv <http://tools.ietf.org/geopriv/>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
