Thanks for the review & the edits. jari
On 24 Nov 2016, at 02:24, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > The new version addresses my concerns and is ready for publication as an > informational RFC. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 10/14/16 4:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02 >> Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespaces for Broadband Forum >> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern >> Review Date: 14-October-2016 >> IETF LC End Date: 4-November-2016 >> IESG Telechat date: N/A >> >> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an >> Informational RFC. >> >> Major issues: >> RFC 3406 states that the namespace considerations section should >> indicate why a new namespace is needed. While this is pretty obvious, >> the text does not actually say anything in that section to explain it. >> In particular, I would expect that section to explain why 3 NIDs are >> needed rather than just 1. >> >> >> Minor issues: >> The template in RFC 3406 indicates the the section in each NID on >> the Process of identifier assignment should "detail the mechanism and or >> authorities for assigning URNs to resources." The draft simply says >> that the BBF will provide procedures. Do those procedures exist? If >> not, there seems to be a minor problem. If they do exist, it would seem >> sensible to include a pointer to the place where the BBF publicly >> documents those procedures, so that people using this information who >> might want to register something can understand what the rules and >> expectations are. (I realize that the RFC 6289 example this is based on >> did not include such a pointer, which is why I am making this a minor >> comment instead of a major one.) >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
