Telechat Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07
review-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07-genart-telechat-krishnan-2013-06-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-06-11
Requested 2013-06-06
Authors Martin Thomson, James Winterbottom
Draft last updated 2013-06-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suresh Krishnan
State Completed
Review review-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07-genart-telechat-krishnan-2013-06-24
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-06-24

Review
review-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07-genart-telechat-krishnan-2013-06-24

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see


http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2013/06/10
IESG Telechat date: 2013/06/13


Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard, but I had a few minor comments as identified
in my last call review dated 2013/05/08. The authors had agreed to fix
the following issues but I have not seen an updated draft yet.

Minor
=====

* Section 5.2

- The Interface-Id option is the DHCPv6 equivalent of the circuit
identifier defined in RFC3046. Please add a reference to Section 22.18
of RFC3315 that describes this option.

- Is there any specific reason that the giaddr is being specified using
the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format? From my reading giaddr is of type
bt:ipAddressType and it allows specification of both IPv4 and IPv6
addresses natively.

* Section 8.7 Page 53

I think there may be an off-by-one error here.

 <xs:maxInclusive value="268435456"/>

Shouldn't this be

 <xs:maxInclusive value="268435455"/>

so that the largest value will fit in 28 bits?

Thanks
Suresh