|
Hi Charlie,
Please see inline.
From: dmm <dmm-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM To: Dale Worley <worley@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gen-art@xxxxxxxx" <gen-art@xxxxxxxx> Cc: "draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids.all@xxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids.all@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "dmm@xxxxxxxx" <dmm@xxxxxxxx> 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.”
|