Robert, thanks for your reviews and thanks to Peter and others for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot but supported Ben’s DISCUSS. I don’t think we can use the 2119 language for national libraries.
Alissa > On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Robert, thanks for checking. > > Although I tend to agree with you about 2119 language, as I understand > the intent of the author (and of the community of practice that uses > national bibliography numbers) is for this document (as RFC 3188 before > it) to define how NBNs are used in the field. > > Peter > > > On 6/4/18 9:07 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> Thanks Peter! >> >> The editorial pass looks really good. It let me spot a nit I missed before: >> >> at >> >> " necessary, a resource in outdated file format is migrated into a more" >> >> you probably want "in an outdated file format" >> >> In that paragraph, you added some MAYs that go against my first original >> point, telling the library what they may do rather than constraining a >> protocol. It looks like you removed some of these as you went through >> the rest of the document, but added others - I'm not easily seeing what >> drove the decision in each spot. That said, per John's note, it's a >> conscious decision of the folks working on the document to use 2119 this >> way, so I'll let it go. >> >> RJS >> >> >> On 6/4/18 9:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Robert, some fixes were posted over the weekend - if you have a chance, >>> please check the diff here: >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-01.txt >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >>>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00 >>>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >>>> Review Date: 2018-05-01 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-21 >>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>>> >>>> Summary: Almost ready for publication as an Information RFC but with >>>> issues >>>> that need to be addressed before publication. >>>> >>>> Why is there no shepherd's writeup? It would be good to explicitly >>>> let the >>>> community know why this is proceeding as an individual draft. >>>> >>>> Issues: >>>> >>>> The document uses 2119 in some inappropriate ways. It's fine to use >>>> 2119 terms >>>> when defining how to construct NBN URNs. It's not ok to use them in >>>> places like >>>> "the national library MUST", and "A national library ... SHOULD >>>> specify ... a >>>> policy" and "libraries MUST agree". Please find a way to say that if >>>> a national >>>> library wants things to work, they will or should do these things. >>>> >>>> While I agree with the values expressed, it seems odd for the URN >>>> registration >>>> to try to put constraints on fees that a national library might collect >>>> (especially using a 2119 SHOULD). >>>> >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>> >>>> The section calling out this draft replaces >>>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn should be removed (its enough to >>>> add >>>> RFC editor instructions to the draft or to the ballot writeup). >>>> >>>> "identifiers identifiers" occurs in the second paragraph on page 4. >>>> >>>> The ABNF in "Declaration of syntactic structure of NSS part" needs to be >>>> reformatted to meet the RFC constraints on line length. >>>> >>>> Consider "physical" instead of "hand-held" in the first paragraph of >>>> 3.1. >>>> A national library may choose to assign an NBN to something too large >>>> to pick >>>> up. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
