Hi. Thanks for the updates.
This all looks good to me. A 1903 film looks like a sensible example! All you have to watch out for now is some slighted early film buff. :-) Best regards. Elwyn On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 10:39 -0700, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux wrote: > Good morning/evening, > > Thank you very much for the review and comments. A revision of > draft-pal-eidr-urn-01 intended to address them is available at [1]. > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pal-eidr-urn-02.txt > > In particular, > > > Would it be possible to create a dummy working > > EIDR that could be used in the RFC? > > The EIDR organization wishes to avoid creating a dummy entry that may > show up in searches and/or require special handling, etc... > > Instead, in order to avoid any appearance of favoritism, the EIDR for > a very early work ("The Great Train Robbery") is now used as an > example throughout the document. > > > Of course it may be that new prefixes are not likely > > to be needed too often and anyway would need a new suffix > > format, in which case this is irrelevant. > > New prefixes will not need to be regularly defined. > > Let me know if you need additional information. > > Best, > > -- Pierre > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-pal-eidr-urn-01.txt > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > > Review Date: 25 April 2014 > > IETF LC End Date: 16 May 2014 > > IESG Telechat date: (if known) - > > > > Summary: Ready with very minor nits. > > > > Query/Suggestion: I don't know if creating IANA registries for > > EIDR-PREFIXes and corresponding EIDR-SUFFIX types has been considered. > > If additional prefixes are likely to have the same suffix format (i.e., > > just fulfilling a need for more space), then considerable future effort > > could be avoided by using expert review by someone from EIRA or SMPTE to > > add new prefixes. Of course it may be that new prefixes are not likely > > to be needed too often and anyway would need a new suffix format, in > > which case this is irrelevant. Just a thought! > > > > Major issues: > > None > > > > Minor issues: > > None > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Header: Shouuld spcify the intended status (which is Informational > > according to the tracker). > > > > Abstact: s/global/globally/ > > > > s1, para 2: s/time of registration/the time of registration/ > > > > s2 title and para 1: It would be more appropriate to title this section > > 'Completed URN Namespace Definition Template' > > and make para 1 something like: > > The namespece definition according to the template in [RFC3406] is as > > follows: > > > > s2, example: > > The example http://doi.org/10.5240/68DD-341E-03EE-4BB8-1761-Q is a > > working EIDR DOI for the movie "Superman Returns". Whilst this > > illustrates the namespace very well, it is normally good to use a dummy > > example to avoid any downstream issues (I don't see that the owners of > > the film would complain, but other might look on it as favouritism). > > Would it be possible to create a dummy working EIDR that could be used > > in the RFC? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
