I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 9 March 2010
IESG Telechat date: 11 March 2010
Note: Since the IETF LC end-date and the telechat are only a day apart, I
intend for this review to serve for both purposes.
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but there
are issues that should be addressed first.
Major issues:
-- section 3.6, general:
As far as I can tell, this section creates a profile of the rate-control draft.
You basically say use pieces of it, but make minor modifications to the
normative requirements. Can you motivate why rate-control does not work as-is?
And if it can't, perhaps this draft and that one should be harmonized prior to
publication?
-- section 3.6, 2nd paragraph:
The empty notify language seems to conflict with the MUST level normative
statement in rate-control that says:
depending on the event package and subscriber
preferences indicated in the SUBSCRIBE request, the NOTIFY request
MUST contain either the current full state or the partial state
showing the difference between the current state and the last
successfully communicated state.
Is it your intent to update rate-control to change this requirement? If so, it
would be good to do so prior to publication of that draft. (see previous
comment)
Minor issues:
-- general:
Some of the filter mechanisms in this draft require a lot of calculations for
every candidate update to determine if it matches a filter. It would be useful
to have some discussion of the scalability impacts of this.
-- Section 1, paragraph 1, last sentence:
I assume their persistence ends when the associated subscription ends, right?
-- Section 3.2, first paragraph after figure 2:
It looks you've effectively declared the example as normative, and skipped over
normative text that needs to be here. I find the "No other variant…" language
confusing in context, as it's not clear to me what restriction in the example
is constraining on <ns-binding>. I think you're better off treating the
examples as informative, and fully defining the normative requirements in
words. (Note that this applies for several instances where you say something to
the effect of "an implementation MUST do FOO according to Figure X".)
-- section 3.6, first paragraph:
Why is average-rate left out? If you are going to suggest using just part of a
previously defined mechanism, it would be nice to show motivation for the parts
left out.
-- section 3.6, last paragraph:
I think you need more motivation for this use case. I _think_ you are referring
to situations where, for example, a location service can give you increasing
precision over time, and you want to say "give me the best you can in X
seconds." But I'm afraid this could be misused in situations where the notifier
requires some period of time to get _any_ information.
It would be helpful to have some comment on how filters interact with
rate-control for location. For example, what happens if I have a max-interval
that expires before a filter has been met? A trigger that fires before the
min-interval expires? (I think the answer is that rate-control wins, but some
text would be helpful.)
Nits/editorial comments:
-- General:
I find the organization of this draft confusing. It would be helpful to have a
clearer distinction between text that creates new mechanism or normative
requirements, and text that describes how you can use existing mechanism. I
think it would be easier to read if you separated new mechanism and usage of
existing mechanisms into separate sections.
-- section 1, paragraph 1:
Please expand PIDF-LO on first mention. The expansion in the abstract doesn't
count--the document should stand alone without the abstract.
s/technical/technically
"…alternative signaling approach…" - Alternative to what? This wording makes
it sound like sip-events is an alternative to 4119, which I don't think is what
you mean to say.
-- Section 1, paragraph 2:
Do you mean to say "[the subscriber] not having to receive…", or "without the
notifier having to issue…"?
-- section 1, numbered list and preceding paragraph:
The list does not seem to follow from the preceding paragraph. That paragraph
leads me to expect a list of mechanisms, and I think what I see is a list of
problems to be solved.
-- section 3.6, first paragraph:
Please clarify--do you mean "the implementation of only two attributes is
required", i.e. you must not implement more than the two attributes, or "only
the implementation of two attributes is required", meaning you don't have to
implement more than the two attributes.
--idnits reports the following:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/)
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer?
(See the Legal Provisions document at
http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- however,
there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Unused Reference: 'GML' is defined on line 690, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3023' is defined on line 719, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4288' is defined on line 731, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery' is defined
on line 746, but no explicit reference was found in the text
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'GML'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
draft-ietf-geopriv-arch (ref. 'I-D.ietf-geopriv-arch')
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic-07
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf