Subject: [Ecrit] Additional Data 24 Comments

From: Chris Santer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 18:01:11 +0000

After reviewing version 24, our team came up with some new comments:

*         The draft should probably make 'provided-by' all lower case; in 5.3 it is 'Provided-By'.  Xml tags are case sensitive, and RFC 4119 shows it in all lower case when quoting in text (see section 2.2.4).

*         The example in draft 24 section 5.3 now shows the 'EmergencyCallDataValue' element in the geopriv10 namespace, which seems incorrect.

*         There is a 'DataProviderReference' element defined in the EmergencyCallData:ProviderInfo namespace - however it doesn't actually fall within the ProviderInfoType definition like it does in other info types, and like it is used in the examples.  This does seem like a problem in the schema.

*         Also not sure if the 'DataProviderReference' element that is shown directly in the PIDF-LO 'provided-by' is really supposed to be there.

*         The DataProviderContact element is declared in the schema as an "xc:vcardType"; instead, it should be declared as a type within the EmergencyCallData:ProviderInfo namespace that contains a 'vcards' element from the vcard-4.0 namespace.  Specifically note the use of 'vcards' plural.  This is because RFC 6351 explicitly states The <vcards> element MUST be present even when only a single vCard is present in an XML document.  The schema in 24 points to the single vCard definition, and most (but not all) of the examples also show a single vCard, and this appears to be a violation of the RFC.

*         The SubscriberData element in EmergencyCallData:SubscriberInfo has the same problem as DataProviderContact above.

*         The schema shows an 'id' element as mandatory, but not all examples show this element and I don't see any explanation what it's for.  Section 4.1.2 states that a 'ProviderID' element is required, but the schema has minOccurs="0".  Several other elements are in the same boat.

Thanks,

Chris Santer