Requirements for a Location-by-Reference Mechanism
draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-09

[Ballot discuss]
The update from -07 to -08 did not resolve any of the Gen-ART
  Review comments.  The author is looking at them now.  He said:
  >
  > I have missed your comments, and so am very sorry.
  > I will reply to your comments as soon as I can.
  >
  This document should not be approve until there is a response to
  these Last Call comments, which can be found at:
  http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07-dawkins.txt

[Ballot comment]
Section 1 has the phrase "This is especially the case when ower availability is a constraint" -- I can't understand this phrase even if I try "owner" for "ower"



Section 1 says "Note that this document makes no differentiation between a Location Server (LS), per [RFC3693], and a Location Information Server (LIS),"

but diagram 1 explicitly differentiates between them so the Note is false.

[Ballot comment]
I like the document.

1.  Introduction

  As justification for a LbyR model, consider the circumstance that in
  some mobile networks it is not efficient for the end host to
  periodically query the Location Information Server (LIS) for up-to-
  date location information.  This is especially the case when ower

Did you mean "owner"?

  availability is a constraint or when a location update is not
  immediately needed.

[Ballot comment]
1.  Introduction

  As justification for a LbyR model, consider the circumstance that in
  some mobile networks it is not efficient for the end host to
  periodically query the Location Information Server (LIS) for up-to-
  date location information.  This is especially the case when ower

Did you mean "owner"?

  availability is a constraint or when a location update is not
  immediately needed.

(1.a) The document shepherd for this document is Alissa Cooper. The
document shepherd has personally reviewed the document and believes
that this document is fit for publication.

(1.b) This document is a product of the GEOPRIV working group and is
largely designed as input to continuing work within the working group.
As such, the document has been thoroughly and sufficiently reviewed by
a number of members of the working group.

(1.c) There are no specific areas within this document that require
additional external review.

(1.d) The shepherd has no specific technical concerns with this
document to which to call attention. No IPR disclosures have been
filed against this document.

(1.e) This document represents the strong consensus of the GEOPRIV
working group. No issues have been raised with the current version of
the document.

(1.f) There have been no threatened appeals or expressions of extreme
discontent against this document.

(1.g) The shepherd has checked the document for ID nits. The document
has a handful of minor nits: three incidents of irregular spacing and
two references to documents that have been updated since its
publication. The author has been informed of these nits. Otherwise,
the document meets the checklist criteria and has no need for any
additional reviews.

(1.h) The document's references are appropriately split into normative
and informative. There are no normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state.
There are no downward normative references.

(1.i) The shepherd has verified that the document's IANA consideration
section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. The
document makes no request of IANA and correctly follows RFC 5226
guidelines by indicating this.

(1.j) There are no instances of formal language in this document.

(1.k) Announcement Writeup:

Technical Summary:

This document defines terminology and describes requirements for the
use of Location-by-Reference, a means of indirectly providing location
information within the GEOPRIV architecture defined in RFC 3693. The
document describes the use of location URIs as a means of providing
this indirection. The document provides requirements that pay
particular attention to privacy and security.

Working Group Summary:

This document represents the strong consensus of the GEOPRIV working
group.

Document Quality:

This requirements document is the product of design team work in the
GEOPRIV working group. It has been thoroughly reviewed by GEOPRIV
participants.