Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

[Jari Arkko]

Thanks for the review & the edits.

jari

On 24 Nov 2016, at 02:24, Joel Halpern  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
>> 
>> .
>> 
>> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

[Joel Halpern]

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

.

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

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

[Joel M. Halpern]

Thanks Barbarra.

With regard to the assignment process text, what you have would work.  I 
would suggest dropping the text about membership and simply talking 
about going through the BBF document creation and approval process.


Yours,
Joel

On 10/27/16 12:53 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:

Hi Joel,


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.


Thanks for the comments. I propose adding the following text at the end of Namespace 
Considerations (the mention of the name change is part of a proposal to resolve a 
separate comment asking how "dslforum-org" relates to BBF):
   Three NIDs are defined. The "broadband-forum-org" and "dslforum-org"
   (Broadband Forum changed its name from DSL Forum in 2008) NIDs have
   been used for many years by BBF without formal registration. As they are
   referenced by multiple BBF specifications currently in common use, BBF is
   requesting to formalize them. The new "bbf" NID will be used for new work 
efforts.


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.)


I'm struggling a bit with this one in trying to figure out what's the best thing to say here. 
At this point in time, URN assignments only happen through creation of a BBF document that 
identifies the URN. BBF processes for document creation are published on the members-only part 
of the website, and only BBF members can participate in creating a BBF document. There is 
currently no plan to allow non-members to register URNs. There is also no plan to allow BBF 
members to register URNs for their own use (creating a BBF document requires interest and 
participation from at least 3 different companies). Would it be appropriate to say "BBF 
procedures for URN assignment are noted at [BBF-RESOURCES] 
" and on that page explain that URN 
assignment requires BBF membership and going through the BBF project and document processes?

Thanks again,
Barbara



___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

[STARK, BARBARA H]

Hi Joel,

> 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.

Thanks for the comments. I propose adding the following text at the end of 
Namespace Considerations (the mention of the name change is part of a proposal 
to resolve a separate comment asking how "dslforum-org" relates to BBF):
   Three NIDs are defined. The "broadband-forum-org" and "dslforum-org" 
   (Broadband Forum changed its name from DSL Forum in 2008) NIDs have 
   been used for many years by BBF without formal registration. As they are 
   referenced by multiple BBF specifications currently in common use, BBF is 
   requesting to formalize them. The new "bbf" NID will be used for new work 
efforts.

> 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.)

I'm struggling a bit with this one in trying to figure out what's the best 
thing to say here. At this point in time, URN assignments only happen through 
creation of a BBF document that identifies the URN. BBF processes for document 
creation are published on the members-only part of the website, and only BBF 
members can participate in creating a BBF document. There is currently no plan 
to allow non-members to register URNs. There is also no plan to allow BBF 
members to register URNs for their own use (creating a BBF document requires 
interest and participation from at least 3 different companies). Would it be 
appropriate to say "BBF procedures for URN assignment are noted at 
[BBF-RESOURCES] " and on that page 
explain that URN assignment requires BBF membership and going through the BBF 
project and document processes?

Thanks again,
Barbara

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art