Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 16 Feb 2010
IESG Telechat date: 18 Feb 2010

Summary: This draft is really close to ready for publication as an 
informational RFC. I have one unaddressed editorial comment, which on 
reflection I am promoting to a minor issue, as well as a few more 
editorial comments that should probably not block publication.

Major issues:
Minor issues:

-- section 3.3, first bullet:

I'm still a little confused by seeing a normative MUST in a section 
entitled "Desirable Properties". If it's really a MUST, then perhaps it 
should be promoted to a bona-fide requirement? Otherwise, perhaps it should 
be a SHOULD?

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Req-10:  The solution MUST allow the end host to determine PSAP/ESRP 
URLs prior to the call, for all emergency services.

Who is the "end host"?

-- section 3.3, third bullet:

s/"...break by the presence..."/"...break in the presence..."    [or "...be 
broken by the presence..."]


-- idnits has some new things to say. (I suspect the boilerplate complaints 
have to do with the paragraphs splitting across page breaks.)

> > tmp/draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-02.txt:
> > 
> >  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
> >  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust
> >     Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009
> >     Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning.
> >     Boilerplate error?
> > 
> >     (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from
> >     12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices.  See
> >     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.)
> > 
> > 
> >  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >     No issues found here.
> > 
> >  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >     No issues found here.
> > 
> >  Miscellaneous warnings:
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
> >     match the current year
> > 
> >  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
> >     it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
> >     a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
> > 
> >     (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
> >     ID-Checklist requires).
> >  == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
> >     first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the disclaimer?
> >     (See the Legal Provisions document at
> >     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). 
> > 
> > 
> >  Checking references for intended status: Informational
> >  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
> >     draft-ietf-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-09
> > 
> >  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
> >     draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-09
> > 
> >  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
> >     draft-ietf-geopriv-lbyr-requirements-07
> > 
> >  == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of
> >     draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-15
> > 
> > 
> >     Summary: 1 error (**), 7 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
> > 
> >     Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
> >     the items above.
> > 
> >