[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-saintandre-urn-example

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 30 March 2013 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8AB21F8EC9; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.287
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Urp5CycJb9Zd; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D042B21F8EC3; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z12so836401wgg.35 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=1SMO6p36VYA/DGoZsdtDMHQgLJrvV0lJcaHvj+1Qcjo=; b=Om+YKJ6wdXAVY7lFEsX/dMyiuNSRoTXXUoLZDBhZrTqZjnwClgafrxJpbi9xlEtpmK U0Dg+YBnRaH22x4AY7w8KDsxhz6UlKAZbMi7vXAq3aOpse0shARYzVvAy5R5mj64PKCl VqtV1/r2Hxl/RALEmWV9szbQiZbYl7n1FESfPiazstjsfbpJxnbmeOeS0RVkIPSTy0pZ mwOYOYX3crHkEC+BWSoQyp9dCJ3/fKKmc4fdZQG83W0PayJRHEiv8qDhv/pgZAuCvkKf bpnkCNZNPbNjan2ZUAw6uxB3V2GUiVHwi+6rrG5mK2/s8IyAAI6G9+7BBTIwL6CZyF68 7l/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id fw3mr908453wic.33.1364612252033; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 03:57:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbEgtAVbY-DK3O_e3qcKXTHdJAgeC4P86VK5sK7Wn06sQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-saintandre-urn-example.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c37cdc89e9d504d91b8cc8"
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-saintandre-urn-example
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:57:34 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate (appsdir)
reviewer for this draft.  (For background on appsdir, please see

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.  Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-saintandre-urn-example
Title: A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples
Reviewer: Murray S. Kucherawy
Review Date: March 29, 2013
IETF Last Call Date: not known
IESG Telechat Date: not known

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a BCP, modulo the minor
point I bring up below.

Major Issues: None.

Minor Issues:

I understand that it's appropriate to do this; we have examples for other
namespaces, so it makes sense to have one here too.  But I'm having trouble
seeing how this will be used.  I'm willing to chalk it up to my
unfamiliarity with URNs in general.  Citing your example in Section 4,
doing something XMPP-related using this technique would mean
"urn:example:xmpp:foo", but that's an example-space URN, not an XMPP URN.
Wouldn't one rather register example namespace within the existing XMPP
namespace for doing things like that?  I realize that would mean every
existing URN namespace would have to go through this exercise, but it seems
like it might be a better fit at least for the case mentioned above.


Sections 2.11 and 2.12: Periods, please.

In Section 1, you might also make reference to the RFC that reserves some
of the IP address space for examples.  It might be RFC2606 or some other;
apologies for not digging up the reference myself, but I'm sending this
from a place with no net access.

Section 6: Pick either "in" or "under".  Probably the former.