[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-12.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-12.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may 
receive.

Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-12.txt

Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication.

Comments/Questions:
==================

The last sentence in the introduction (last sentence on page 5): where
do the authors anticipate actions will be defined?  Same question also
would apply to section 5.
_______________________________________________________________________

In the next-to-last paragraph in section 4.1 (on page 10), there is an
interesting (and interestingly confusing) discussion of a possibility
of supporting co-planar (but not necessarily constant altitude) and/or
nearly co-planar location polygons - which is then (apparently) negated
in the last sentence.  Is it the intention - behind saying "two polygon
forms are permitted" - to assert that all other polygon forms are "not
permitted" (i.e. - disallowed/forbidden)?  If that is the case, this
paragraph could probably be simplified.  I would suggest something like:

   In order for the notion of a location that is defined as within a
   specific polygon to make sense, points specified for the polygon 
   MUST be coplanar.  To avoid implementation complexity, only two
   polygon forms are permitted: polygons specified using EPSG 4326, 
   and polygons specified using EPSG 4979 with a constant altitude 
   value.

It is then possible to consider whether or not it makes sense to retain:

   However, implementations SHOULD be prepared to accept small
variations 
   that might occur depending on whether the the polygon is specified on

   a plane in space, or only relative to the ellipsoid.  

NITs:
====

Towards the bottom of page 4, "evalation" should be
"evaluation"..._________________________________________________________
______________

In section 12 (Security Considerations), there is what appears to be
an extra closing paren at the end of the next-to-last sentence.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art