Thanks, Dan and Barry. Is there a new rev or RFC Editor -notes?
On 20 Nov 2014, at 15:13, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
