[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-blanchet-ccsds-urn-00.txt

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 23 September 2015 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342001A802A; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pWRMNz7BlHfd; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [217.34.220.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818EB1A7014; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1443022975; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=P3RAhm/CvYngj93PxaP8ynFXOQIX4eNUnne+pvy+jMg=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=XT4cU0C+/tokLUkVxYwiencvDsBZv22d+PBRvF2uBx5P/gf2Kbc10NRtucB9g4QwOKbGGD tropQMU4i4CcwHaxfdMXSkPISJCD77pa2BVY7ng/Ng0SMSKv+MCjSx2qDrYyVcAAhq80cQ V9BQ+Ad8t+hbmJ6GjWeRu49PHmwKcCY=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VgLIfgAeT65Q@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:42:55 +0100
Message-ID: <5602C874.1080002@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:42:44 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-blanchet-ccsds-urn.all@ietf.org
References: <20150911142142.19321.82949.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55F2E9FF.1050403@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <55F2E9FF.1050403@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/dpo5zMPXPLXQxFf-Edxz8RTsFQU>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-blanchet-ccsds-urn-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:42:59 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see ​ 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). 


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-blanchet-ccsds-urn-00.txt
Title: A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Consultative 
Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 2015-09-23
IETF Last Call Date: 2015-10-09
IESG Telechat Date: 2015-10-15

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC (with a nit)

I validates syntax against the URN spec and verified that the document 
satisfies registration requirements. All looks good to me.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Nits:

References [3] and [4] are the same. Was this intentional? It would be 
less confusing if authors replace [4] with [3].