Re: [Geopriv] RFC3825bis

From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) ^lt;>
Date: Thu Apr 23 2009 - 04:13:48 EDT

Hi Martin,

>Hannes, Mr Bond,
>Evidently Mr. Bond has lots of time on his hands.

Indeed strange. He could have contributed code instead...

>I could review this document and produce a fairly long list of
>problems. Most relate to the text that Mr. Bond didn't

It did not change when it is not in RFC 3825 already.

> Casually reading through, I also see missed changes,
>like the altitude code of 0 not being defined.

True. RFC 3825 does not register it with IANA.

>For those folks who would prefer this approach, could you
>please explain why? I'm not convinced by vague assertions of
>personal preference. If this comes down to the time that it
>takes to validate Section 1.2 of the proposed draft, then that
>is a valid concern. However, when weighed against the cost of
>re-implementing each of these changes based on the original
>text, my belief is that we are better served by what is in 3825bis.
>For the most part, the cost of checking Section 1.2 is only
>incurred by two groups: those reviewing the revised document
>and those who have existing implementations. Since the latter
>group is known to be very small, I might reach an uncharitable
>and - undoubtedly - unfair conclusion about the motivations
>behind the proposal to adopt Mr Bond's draft.


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On
>> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>> Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2009 6:07 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: [Geopriv] RFC3825bis
>> Hi all,
>> To provide some constructive input to the ongoing discussion
>I wanted
>> to know how RFC3825bis would look like in case it is very much based
>> on the text from RFC 3825.
>> Here is the outcome:
>> bond-geo
>> priv-dhcp-geo-00.txt
>> This version obviously does not provide the DHCPv6 encoding.
>> As you can see from the diff version there are still a number of
>> changes,
>> namely:
>> t
>> &url2
>> =
>> bond-ge
>> opriv-dhcp-geo-00.txt
>> * The I-D templates changed in the meanwhile.
>> * The previous draft was written in Word and this version in XML2RFC
>> and hence the layout is a bit different. For example, the
>appendix is
>> in a different place.
>> * The resolution to uncertainty change impacted number of
>parts in the
>> document, including the re-written example.
>> * The example contains the translation to GML as well.
>> * The document does not repeat the datum values from RFC 3825.
>> * The ack section will be different and is currently empty.
>> * I believe that the RFC editor uses symbolic references these days.
>> I would still change a number of things throughout the document. For
>> example, I wouldn't call "GPS" an exotic mechanism.
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>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.
>Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv mailing list
Received on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:13:48 +0300

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 23 2009 - 04:13:52 EDT