Subject: Re: [drinks] Review of draft-ietf-drinks-spprov-07

From: "Ali, Syed Wasim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:38:30 -0400

Dean,

Thanks for the detailed comments. Let me answer the easy ones first ;-)
Please, see inline.

-Syed

On 5/25/11 3:27 PM, "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>4.1/4.2 NIT: We have some inconsistent capitalization oddities relating
>to words like "client", "server", "request" and "response", which are
>sometimes capitalized and sometimes aren't. There may be some sort of
>not-obvious--to-me rule in play about where they are being used as proper
>nouns vs. ordinary nouns, but it was a bit distracting and is likely to
>get changed by the RFC editor anyhow. I suggest quoting the word in its
>definition, then just using lower case everywhere else: For example, a
>"special term" may be defined in the text, but once it has been so
>defined, it's a just a special term.
[SA] I can take a stab at fixing these.

>
>6.3 p4: s/Destionation/Destination/, several times.
[SA] Will fix. Thx

>
>6.9/6.10 I'm befuddled about the functionality of putting peeringOrg
>elements into a Route Group Offer operation.  Maybe I'm just being
>normally dense. Are we trying to say that the registry should accept the
>route group because the listed peeringOrgs already have? Is this subject
>to some sort of "bullshit attack" like the chain-letter spam that claims
>the reported virus was validated by Microsoft?
>
>
>Section 7: Anybody validated the XML herein? It looks good to my Mark 1
>eyeballs, but they're a bit out of date.
[SA] Yes. The XML examples in this section are valid and conform to sppp
schema towards the end of the document.

>
>
>_______________________________________________
>drinks mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks

---

From: "Ali, Syed Wasim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:52:48 -0400

Dean,

Thanks for raising this point. Please see the suggestion below:

On 5/26/11 10:33 AM, "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>On May 26, 2011, at 3:23 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 6.1 DestGrpType discusses server-defined date/time values.Do we need
>>>further discussion on time zones, relative vs. absolute times, and what
>>>these time values mean to clients? This question persists through
>>>several subsequent extensions of BasicObjType (6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.13).
>>>Examples in section 7 are using Z-time. What are the consequences, if
>>>any, of time-base mismatches? Do we need to say anything about this?
>> 
>> DS: I have always been a fan of just using UTC
>
>
>Can we include UTC in the specification?
>
>What happens if the client and the server have wildly different ideas of
>the current value of UTC? Does anything break?

[SA] In the examples, I am using the absolute form of UTC time (indicated
with 
the 'Z'). Though a literal value where the time is expressed with the
timezone (as in +- 00:00) is a valid XML Schema 'dateTime' presentation
and should be acceptable. Having said that, I think use of local time
should be discouraged since this forces the consumer to make an assumption
about the timezone that will lead to use of mechanisms (or even
assumptions) outside the SPPP protocol. This can potentially lead to
interoperability issues or worse. Unless I receive further comments, I
will go ahead and add this clarification in the protocol document.