--On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 15:56:21 -0500 Henning Schulzrinne
<hgs(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu> wrote:
That's again an RPID issue. Not every protocol using these tokens will
have notes.
There's no second protocol at the moment, so you have the chance to
provide guidance...
Yes: AAA
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt)
Right - the wording there is an argument in favour of centralizing guidance
(it has none).....
Legal wording isn't what I'm looking for. Hints to the reviewer about
what the WG considers "common sense" would be helpful.
To better understand what you have in mind, can you give an example?
There are some obvious things, like:
- not specific to a country
- not a specific company or organization
- well-defined
- widely recognized
That's good guidelines for a reviewer. It would allow him to reject both
"McDonalds" (company) and "Lavvo" (Sami tent, not widely recognized), but
would probably accept "open ocean" and "river" (if it was used in a context
about where a boat is, these might make sense).
I'd say "not specific to a country or language".
Go for it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf