Subject: Re: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-00

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:53:17 -0400

Any other responses to this WGLC? Would be good to hear from a few more people so we know the WG has read and supports this doc (even if you just say, "it's good to go").

Thanks,
Alissa

On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

> Looks good.
> 
> Minor comment that the editor might like to consider for the
> schema...or not: enumerated types are more efficient than branching
> regular expressions when it comes to defining simple types.  This
> would apply to "layer3" and "target".  "layer4" would require a union
> type with an enumerated type and a number (though the number could be
> range constrained in that case).
> 
> I'll let Ray use his discretion - it's clear that the current schema
> is correct.  A more efficient schema can be built by implementers
> 
> Nit in Section 3, p1: s/show/shown/
> 
> On 13 September 2012 07:52, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Dear GEOPRIV,
>> 
>> This is a Working Group Last Call for comments on draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-00:
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-flow-identity-00>
>> 
>> Please send comments to the list no later than Friday, 5 October 2012.
>> 
>> Remember that all comments are helpful, even if it's just "Looks good to me".  You can also say "Doesn't look good to me", but it's more helpful to say why!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Alissa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>