Hi Mary,
Responses inline. I've edited out sections that I think we have
closure on.
On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[...]
-- Section 6.2, value list:
-- In my previous review, I was confused as to the relationship
between
the geodetic/civic and LoBV/LoBR choices. I
)
Cc: Richard Barnes; General Area Review Team;
james.winterbot...@andrew.com; martin.thom...@andrew.com;
barbara.st...@att.com; acoo...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
Again, my point was not to say
);
james.winterbot...@andrew.com; martin.thom...@andrew.com;
barbara.st...@att.com; acoo...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
On Jun 5, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for your review
...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
On Jun 5, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for your review. With respect to the HTTP issue you raise, is
your claim that the HTTP binding prevents the use
, 2009 5:58 PM
To: General Area Review Team; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00);
james.winterbot...@andrew.com; martin.thom...@andrew.com;
barbara.st...@att.com
Cc: Richard Barnes; acoo...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
I
PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: Richard Barnes; General Area Review Team;
james.winterbot...@andrew.com; martin.thom...@andrew.com;
barbara.st...@att.com; acoo...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
Hi Mary
Barnes; General Area Review Team;
james.winterbot...@andrew.com; martin.thom...@andrew.com;
barbara.st...@att.com; acoo...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
Hi Mary,
The part I was trying to highlight was the lack
...@att.com; acoo...@cdt.org; Cullen Jennings; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of
draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
Again, my point was not to say that this was necessarily a problem--I
highlighted it as something the IESG should think about, knowing that
they have a big reading
On Jun 5, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for your review. With respect to the HTTP issue you raise,
is your claim that the HTTP binding prevents the use of Digest or
Basic based on this sentence from Section 6.3?
HELD error messages MUST be carried by a 200 OK
Ben,
Thanks for your review. With respect to the HTTP issue you raise, is
your claim that the HTTP binding prevents the use of Digest or Basic
based on this sentence from Section 6.3?
HELD error messages MUST be carried by a 200 OK HTTP/HTTPS response.
If so, then I think that's a
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document:
11 matches
Mail list logo
