Hi Barry, This looks reasonable, thanks for the timely response and for addressing my comments. I suggest that the editor also fixes the text in section 7.
Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:53 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt > > Thanks for the review, Dan. > > > 1. The document does not expand the acronym NATO at the first > > occurrence. Moreover, in section 7 it mentions 'that a standards body, > > like NATO' which is misleading - as NATO is not a standards body. I > > suggest to use the full name in the title and abstract, expand the > > acronym at first occurrence and correct the text in Section 7. > > The AD/shepherd agrees. > > > 2. The abstract and introduction should make clear that this is a > > request made according to RFC 3406 for a formal URN space type, as > > described in Section 4.3 of RFC 3406. > > I suppose that I agree with that, too, though I think it's less important. > But > something like this should do nicely: > > OLD > This document describes a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace for > assignment by NATO. The current primary use is for uniquely > identifying Extensible Markup Language (XML) artifacts that provide > information about NATO message text formats and service > specifications as described in various NATO standards [4], > instructions and publications. > > NEW > This document allocates a formal Uniform Resource Name (URN) > namespace for assignment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization > (NATO), as specified in RFC 3406. The current primary use is for > uniquely identifying Extensible Markup Language (XML) artifacts > that provide information about NATO message text formats and > service specifications as described in various NATO standards, > instructions and publications. > > END > > (That also removes the reference ("[4]") in the abstract, as the RFC Editor > doesn't allow references in abstracts.) And then a similar change in the > Introduction section. > > > I could not find in the summary written by the AD shepherd an > > indication whether this review occurred. > > The AD/shepherd apologises profusely for his typo: the writeup said "uri- > review", where it should have said "urn-nid". I've corrected the error in the > writeup, and, yes, the review happened. > > Ira, I'm going to move the document into IESG Evaluation state now. > Please update the I-D as soon as you can with the above minor changes. > Thanks. > > Barry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
