Hello,
I might want to comment the Section 4 of this document.
Firstly, none of the three registries are properly specified, per RFC
5226. Among other, there is no clear format of the registries.
Therefore I propose the following changes.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. 'Altitude Types' Registry
IANA is asked to create and maintain the registry called 'Altitude
Types' following the guidelines below.
The registry consists of 3 values: Altitude Type, Description and
Reference. They are described below.
Altitude Type - an integer; refers to the value used in DHCP options
described in this document. Values from 0 to 15 are assigned.
Description - the description of the altitude described by this code.
Reference - the reference to the document that describes the
altitude code. Such MUST define the way that the 30 bit altitude
values and the associated 6 bit uncertainty are interpreted.
Initial values are given below; new assignments are to be made
following the 'Standards Action' policies [RFC5226]
# Description Reference
+-------+---------------------------+------------+
| 0 | No known altitude | RFC xxxx |
| 1 | Altitude in meters | RFC xxxx |
| 2 | Altitude in floors | RFC xxxx |
| 3-14 | Unassigned | RFC xxxx |
| 15 | Reserved | RFC xxxx |
+-------+---------------------------+------------+
[RFC Editor: Please replace xxxx with RFC number assigned to this
document.
and etc. for each registry and the request to assign the DHCP code number.
Moreover, IMO RFC 5226 should be referenced normatively as it describes
procedures for assignment of new values to the registry. Informative is
not appropriate here. I'd also like to ask whether the following
reference is acceptable for normative:
[EPSG] European Petroleum Survey Group, http://www.epsg.org/ and
http://www.epsg-registry.org/
Normative references are allowed to documents only, but not websites.
Thank you in advance for considering my comments in the next version of
the draft.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
05.02.2011 0:19, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG
(geopriv) to consider the following document:
- 'Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options for Coordinate-based
Location Configuration Information'
<draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard
This is the 2nd IETF LC for this document focusing on changes resulting from IESG review.
The first last call was on version -12 of the document.
IESG review resulted in these substantial changes:
- The document will obsolete RFC3825
- Option code 123 is defined in this document
- The document defines a new option code instead of extending the behavior of code 123
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-02-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document specifies Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options
(both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) for the coordinate-based geographic location
of the client. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes
Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude, with resolution or uncertainty
indicators for each. Separate parameters indicate the reference
datum for each of these values. This document obsoletes RFC 3825.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-rfc3825bis/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf