Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-12.txt
Reviewer: Eric Gray
Review Date: 9/20/2007 
IESG Telechat Date: 9/20/2007 

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.