Subject: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-ani-location

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:45:07 -0500

All,
     I have performed the usual AD Evaluation of
draft-ietf-netext-ani-location as a part of the RFC publication process.
 I only have a few comments/questions on this draft that I would like to
see resolved prior to starting IETF Last Call:

1. I would think that this document should be marked as "Updates RFC
6757".  Thoughts on this?

2. In Section 3.1, the civic location field is limited to 253 bytes.
Given that there are civic locations that exceed that length, can you
provide a brief justification for that limit?

3. The two sub-sections of Section 4 use 2119 keywords when describing
implementation details that really do not impact interoperability.
Unless you want to get into interesting procedural discussions with some
ADs, I would suggest modifying the text to not use 2119 keywords.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:47:15 +0000

Hello Brian

Thanks for the evaluation.
Comments embedded. 

Thanks

Rajesh

>1. I would think that this document should be marked as "Updates RFC

This is not making any changes to RFC6757 and so this not updating RFC6757.

>provide a brief justification for that limit?

This is a good question. The practical reason for 253 bytes is that the
ANI length field is one byte.
However, the DHCPv4 Civic Location also has a one byte length, so we felt
it was reasonable. 
For longer length, a PIDF location URI could be used (a URI that would
dereference to a location object).
Potentially, we can add text around how the 253 byte limit could be
handled for long civic locations.
  
>ADs, I would suggest modifying the text to not use 2119 keywords.

Ok.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:54:21 -0500

Hi Rajesh,

> This is not making any changes to RFC6757 and so this not updating RFC6757.

An Updates tag is not reserved only for changing an RFC.  Do you want
new implementers of 6757 to also implement this spec at the same time?

> handled for long civic locations.

I think some text describing how to handle locations that won't fit in
the field would be good.

>> ADs, I would suggest modifying the text to not use 2119 keywords.

Cool.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:01:05 +0000

Hi Brian,

>new implementers of 6757 to also implement this spec at the same time?

OK. Make sense to keep the ANI option as a single extension.
We though we were not making changes to the spec and so we did not use the
Update tag.

Regards
Sri