Last Call Review of draft-ietf-geojson-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-geojson
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-05-31
Requested 2016-05-19
Authors H. Butler, M. Daly, A. Doyle, Sean Gillies, T. Schaub, T. Schaub
Draft last updated 2016-05-31
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-geojson-02-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-05-31
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-05-31


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting
 a new version of the draft.


For more information, please see the FAQ at <>.


Document: draft-ietf-geojson-03

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2016-06-01

IETF LC End Date: 2016-05-31

IESG Telechat date: 2016-06-02



Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC, but I have some comments.


Major issues:


Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 3], "any thing"--typo-->"anything"


-[Page 4], KML not spelled out at first use (Keyhole Markup Language?)


-[Page 11],PIDF-LO, please spell out at first use and maybe reference RFC5139.


-[Page 11], it says

"Applications such as PIDF-LO that are sensitive to location

   uncertainty and confidence might treat ...


Not clear: if this is not an OK behavior, it should say "should not treat..."? If this is an ok behavior, maybe it should say "MAY treat ..."


-[Page 12], "in the the case"---typo-->"in the case"


-[Page 12], "the OGC's "" [OGCURL]. "

Should the URL  be moved to reference section?


-[Page 13], "or to to have"--typo-->"or to have"


-[Page 16], "the the semantics"--typo-->"the semantics"


-[Page 18], "can not be"---->"cannot be"



Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson Research