Hi Charlie,
Please see inline.
From: dmm
<dmm-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:dmm-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>> on
behalf of Charlie Perkins
<charles(_dot_)perkins(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net<mailto:charles(_dot_)perkins(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM
To: Dale Worley
<worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com<mailto:worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com>>,
"gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
<gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Cc:
"draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
<draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>,
"dmm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:dmm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
<dmm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:dmm(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04
4.9. Description of the RFID types
This section needs to be revised. It provides a lot of detail about
the RFID types, but it's not enough detail for a reader who doesn't
understand RFID to learn how any particular RFID scheme works. E.g.,
the first paragraph says that GID contains three fields in the first
sentence, and that it contains four fields in the third sentence.
Despite this, the description isn't enough to allow the reader to
construct GID identifiers manually.
On the other hand, readers who already understand the RFID schemes
will find this text redundant.
I think that almost all of this text can be replaced by references to
the EPC documents, since these identifiers are opaque from the point
of view of mobile identification.
Here I am at a loss, because I was specifically requested to insert some
descriptive but not normative text. I will ask the person who made the
request to provide their feedback on the mailing list. For myself, I am more
than happy to delete the text.
When we discussed this issue in the past, the general feedback from the WG was
that the draft should provide some minimal amount of details on the new
identifier types, what the identifier is, how the identifier is constructed,
what is the access technology and a reference to the specification that
provides that definition. The idea is NOT TO provide extensive details on the
spec, but to enable a reader with some high level details and a pointer to the
specification. I tend to think the text in the current specification just does
that. If the text is seen as redundant text, we can certainly add a statement
saying that the definition for the identifier is provided in spec-XYZ and is
repeated here for convenience. May be other folks in the WG have some views on
this.
Comments from 10/11/2015 email:
"Some text on the motivation for defining new Types may be helpful. Document is
not just standardizing the currently in-use/popular identifier types, its also
introducing new types are not in use. The reasons/interest for defining
identifiers that are tied to the physical elements of the device (RFID, MAC
address ..etc) and how it helps in deployment of the technology may be useful.
Few lines of text will really help."
"I was hoping to see a sub-section for each of the types. We cannot standardize
a identifier type without providing any explanation on the identifier type or
the references to the base definitions. This can be painful, but I'd have a
small section for each of the types. It can be 3 line text on the a.)
Definition b.) Format c.) Example format d.) Reference to the base spec that
defines those identifiers."