Subject: [Geopriv] Please review: PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05.txt

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:45:16 -0500

All -

Please review this and see if there's anything here you disagree with  
(if you do
disagree with anything, please reply ASAP).

Note in particular section 1.h. I _think_ we can address those with  
notes to move
the 4119 reference and delete (update?) the URLs into ISO.

Thanks again to both Andy and James for help in pulling this back  
together.

RjS

---------

1.a) The document shepherd for  draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo  
is Robert Sparks.
          I have reviewed this version of the document and believe it  
is ready for IESG
          consideration (noting the potential nits called out in this  
writeup).
          Please also note that the working group's discussion of  
this document happened
          before I became involved with the group.

1.b) The document appears to have had adequate review from people  
working with
         civic addresses from several countries. Some additional care  
went into the XML
         formulation.

1.c) I don't believe the document requires focused review from a  
different perspective.
         It is an XML related document and uses xml:lang. Calling XML  
community attention
         to it during IETF last call would be appropriate.

1.d) I am not aware of any special concerns the IESG needs to take  
into consideration.

1.e) The editor and working group chair during the time the group was  
discussing this
          report that working group consensus was solid. Discussion  
in the archives is a little
          light, but the subject of the draft isn't particularly  
contentious.

1.f) I am not aware of any extreme discontent over this document.

1.g) The document satisfies the NIT requirements except for the  
reference issues discussed below.

1.h) The references are divided into Normative and Informative. There  
may be issues here however.
          1) The document normatively updates 4119, but lists 4119 as  
an informative reference
           2) The URIs for the ISO references do not resolve.

1.i) This document registers a new XML namespace and schema. It also  
updates the "CAtypes"
        registry created by RFC4776 that requires "Expert Review" and  
"Specification Required".

1.j) Andy Newton reports that the XML schema in this document  
validates under Xerces-J.

1.k) Announcement Text:

Technical Summary

This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic
location. This format is designed for use with PIDF Location Object
(PIDF-LO) documents. The format is based on the civic address
definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on the
civic types defined for DHCP, and adds a hierarchy to address complex
road identity schemes. The format also includes support for the
xml:lang language tag and restricts the types of elements where
appropriate.

Working Group Summary

    This document was reviewed by the GEOPRIV working group, where it
    has reached consensus for publication as an IETF RFC.

Document Quality

    The XML Schema contained within this document has been checked
    against Xerces-J 2.6.2.

    In addition to updating RFC 4119, this document is also a normative
    reference in draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-05.txt.

    There are three known implementations of this specification.

Personnel

    The Document Shepherd is Andrew Newton <andy at hxr.us>.
    The Responsible Area Director is Cullen Jennings <fluffy at  
cisco.com>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:00:49 -0500

Thanks for the write-up Robert.

>           1) The document normatively updates 4119, but lists 4119 as

Oops - that can easily be rectified.  It should be a normative reference.

>            2) The URIs for the ISO references do not resolve.

Those should just be removed.  What appeared to be a stable link wasn't, so there isn't much point keeping it.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 October 2007 8:45 AM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: [Geopriv] Please review: PROTO writeup fordraft-ietf-geopriv-
> revised-civic-lo-05.txt
> 
> All -
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:05:23 -0400

Looks good.  Just one small adjustment, the personnel section of 1.k  
and section 1.a need to match.

Thanks Robert.

-andy