[apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-21
"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 29 September 2010 09:52 UTC
Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824D53A6DA6 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.305, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JtyBzLEjvnnW for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A935D3A6B8A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id o8T9rNFi029804 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:53:23 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 5af2_51a1_659291ec_cbaf_11df_8c32_001d096c5782; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:53:22 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:43354) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S1457985> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:53:21 +0900
Message-ID: <4CA30C90.6080505@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:53:20 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-geopriv-policy@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-21
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:52:47 -0000
Hello, I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see <http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team>). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-21 Title: Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information Reviewer: Martin Dürst Review Date: 2010-09-26 Summary: No major issue; minor issues that may benefit from fixing MAJOR ISSUES: None that I found. I have just read through the draft itself, but in no way tried to look at the long history of this draft, or the discusses in the datatracker, and I do in no way want to claim that I understand much of geopriv or the surrounding policy framework. MINOR ISSUES (These are issues that would benefit from clarification, or that might be done in a somewhat better way for another spec in the future, unless somebody thinks they need to be escalated): - The Copyright notice doesn't have a pre-November 10, 2008 exception clause. Given the age of the document, I'd have assumed it needs one, but it's up to the authors to know what works here. - Section 2, Terminology: "Presentity or Target" and "Watcher or Location Recipient": Defining two parallel terms is confusing. Better define one term for use in the document, and mention as part of the definition that the other term is also used in some contexts. - Section 4 says that a <location-condition> element evaluates to TRUE if any of its child elements are true, i.e., *a logical OR*. It would be very helpful if the explanation in terms of logical ANDs or ORs would be added to the other places where such logical operations take place. - Section 4: "the location profile that *is* included as child element*s*": Singular/plural mismatch - Section 4: lt;location>: conversion error from XML? - Section 4: using the xml:lang to describe the language of attribute values is not exactly forbidden, but also not recommended, ond not future-proof (think about adding another attribute that might need different language information). Best practice is to change any attributes that contain natural-language content into elements. - Section 4: Better add a reference to BCP 47 for language tags. - Section 4: "If an extension is not understood by the entity evaluating the rules then this rule evaluates to FALSE.": Does this apply to the unknown extension element itself, or to the element that contains this extension element? This should be clarified. Also, "The <location-condition> and the <location> elements provide extension points." should be clarified by saying how these extension points are provided (e.g. via some attribute values, new attributes, contained elements, or whatever). - Section 4.1: "if .. is *within* the described location.": as locations can be described e.g. by polygons,..., it should say either *fully within* or *partially within* or some such. - Section 4.1: "If the geodetic location of the Target is unknown then the <location> element containing the information for the geodetic location profile evaluates to FALSE.": Does that mean that it is impossible to express the fact that I want 'unknown' locations to be transferred through? (This would allow the distinction between "I'm currently at a location I don't want to tell you" and "no information available", which in some cases may be something that the originator of the information wants to reveal.) - Section 4.2: "The child element evaluates to TRUE if the two values are identical based on a *bit-by-bit* comparison.": XML doesn't transport bits, only Unicode codepoints. This should say "based on a *codepoint-by-codepoint comparison*". - Section 4.2: "i.e., geocode the location": For all I'm aware, geocoding refers to the translation from civic location (such as addresses,...) to geodetic location, not the other way around as implied here. - Section 6.2: "seconds are added to the current *date*": How do I add e.g. 5 seconds to a date such as 2010-09-29? Shouldn't this say "seconds are added to the current *time*"? (the fact that the Unix date command gives date and time, whereas the time command does something else altogether is irrelevant here :-) - Section 6.2: "then the value MUST be set to the current date": If a date is really only a date, then this would mean that expiry would depend highly on the time within the day, and therefore the timezone. If it is a date-time, then it would mean immediate expiry, which could mean that there is no chance to forward this data to anybody assuming that forwarding takes some non-zero amount of time. Is this really what's intended? - Section 6.3: "The value provided with the <set-note-well> element contains a privacy statement as a human readable text string and an 'xml:lang' attribute *denotes* the language of the human readable text.": denotes -> denoting? - Section 6.3: If different parties involved understand different lanugages, what's the language to choose for the <note-well>? - Section 6.5.1: The split into country/region/city/building/full may work very well for the US, but to what extent has it been checked that this split makes sense for other locations? - Section 7.1: Given that address data is compared literally, the choice of example exposes a basic problem: How can e.g. <A3>Munich</A3> be matched with <A3>München</A3>,...? Is there some convention that the data and rules have to be in English (that would be very limiting)? Is there a way to write rules that match both Munich and München, in the logically expected way? Please explain. - Section 7.4: There is a long example with three namespaces. In general, it is totally unnecessary to create a separate namepace for every minor extension and addition. For example, something like <gp:provide-location><lp:provide-geo> with two separate namespaces seems totally over-engineered. Better to make sure elements from extensions don't overlap, and to the extent they don't overlap, put them in the same namespace. This will make stuff shorter and easier to read. - Section 10.7: "will look for all documents within http://.../foo": The HTTP protocol doesn't provide a way to enumerate all documents within a certain URI (and the URI doesn't terminate with a slash, so it's not even a directory). If this is XCAP-specific functionality, then please slightly rewrite to make it easier to understand for outsiders. - Section 11.3: "Profile names are XML tokens": The XML spec talks about Nmtokens (name tokens). That's the closest to "tokens" that I was able to find. It should be clarified, also in the respect that the "are" should be replaced by something that makes clear that this is a syntax restriction, not something on a semantic level. - Section 12: "to understand UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings": reword, e.g. to "to understand UTF-8 and UTF-16" or to "to understand the UTF-8 and UTF-16 character encodings". - Section 13: "a discussion of generic security threats": make clear in which respect these are 'generic' - Section 13: "For example, when a transformation...": incomplete sentence. - Section 13: "a random number to is added to": remove first 'to' - Section 13, 4th paragraph: This would be much easier to understand with an example or two. - Section 13: "Users might create policies that are non-sensical.": What does that mean? How is software supposed to perform consistency checks if the only thing we know is that we want to guard against 'non-sensical'? - [ifip07]: change to [ardanga07] for consistency? - Appendix A: Why are there email addresses for some of the people listed here? So that we can complain to them (rather than the authors?) about errors in the document? Also, an 'and' is missing before the last person. Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
- [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-geo… Martin J. Dürst