Re: [Ecrit] LoST Review - Part 3

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

> Why btw are several attributes in the same section of the spec?
> Better with one attribute per section and a crisp short definition of
> that attribute.

Each definition is one or two sentences long; I broke them into  
paragraphs.

> > 5.6.  Defining the Service Region with the <serviceBoundary> Element
>
> Element and not attribute again.

I don't see the problem with defining an element here.

> >    The service region can be indicated by value or by
> >    reference (see Section 5.7).  If a client moves outside the  
> > service
> >    area and wishes to obtain current service data, it MUST send a new
> >    query with its current location.
>
> It is interesting to have "if...wishes...MUST" in the same sentence.
> What if he do not wish to obtain current service data? I.e. the "if"
> make the MUST loose its power.

MUST is probably not quite appropriate here. It is a simple condition  
(if the client wants something, it needs to do something), so I  
removed it.


> >    The client only processes the first element that
> >    it can understand according to its list of supported location
> >    profiles.  Thus, the elements are alternative descriptions of the
> >    same service region, not additive geometries.
>
> What if there is a difference? Is a difference allowed?

I don't understand this comment.

> >    The server returns all suitable service regions, using all
> > available
> >    location profiles, so that intermediate caches have this
> > information
> >    available for future queries.
>
> Is "suitable" same as "match the query"?

The paragraph is not really necessary; I just dropped it.

Henning



_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit