Last Call Review of draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06
review-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06-genart-lc-gurbani-2012-11-30-00

Request Review of draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-12-26
Requested 2012-11-28
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -06 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Samuel Weiler (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Vijay Gurbani
Review review-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06-genart-lc-gurbani-2012-11-30
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07947.html
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2012-11-30
Review completed: 2012-11-30

Review
review-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06-genart-lc-gurbani-2012-11-30

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Nov-30-2012
IETF LC End Date: Dec-26-2012
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

This document is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 2

Nits:

1/ S1: The value "thing" sort of creeps up on you in the second
 paragraph.  Upon further reading, it becomes more apparent that
 during the WG discussions "thing" was a meta-value (or super-
 class) and that "application" and "device" appear to be sub-
 classes (or specific values) of "thing"s.

 Furthermore, rf6473 already defined "application" and that this
 particular draft is now defining "device".

 To better impart this information, I would suggest the following
 simple modification

 OLD:
 ...Working Group defined values of "individual", "org", "group", and
 "location" for the KIND property.  Additionally, [RFC6473] has
 defined a value of "application" for the KIND property to represent
 software applications.

 During working group discussion of the document that became
 [RFC6473], consideration was given to defining a more general value
 of "thing", but it was decided to split "thing" into software
 applications and hardware devices and to define only the
 "application" value at that time....

 NEW:
 ...Working Group defined values of "individual", "org", "group", and
 "location" for the KIND property.

 During working group discussion of the document that became
 [RFC6473], consideration was given to defining a more general value
 of "thing", but it was decided to split "thing" into software
 applications and hardware devices and to define only the
 "application" value at that time....

2/ S2, top of page 4: "FN" probably expands to "Full Name".  If it is
 an accepted practice to use "FN" in your domain, then you can leave
 it unexpanded.  If not, then an expansion may help the general reader
 (like me) who may think what "FN" is.  (The rest of the properties
 listed on page 4 and 5 appear to be self-explanatory).

Thanks,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg at {bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani at alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   

http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/