Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9517 <draft-urn-ddi-06> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] To avoid repetition, we removed the first in-text citation 
to [RFC8141].  Please let us know if any corrections are required. 

Original: 
   This document registers a formal namespace identifier (NID) for
   Uniform Resource Names [RFC8141] associated with DDI resources in
   accordance with the process defined in [RFC8141].

Current: 
   This document registers a formal Namespace Identifier (NID) for 
   URNs associated with DDI resources in accordance with the process 
   defined in [RFC8141].
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - to make this sentence clearer, we updated the text as 
shown below. Please let us know of any objections.

Original:
   The specifications DDI Codebook [DDIC] and DDI Lifecycle [DDIL]
   are expressed in XML Schema, DDI XKOS - Extended Knowledge
   Organization System [DDIXKOS] in OWL/RDF, SDTL - Structured Data
   Transformation Language [SDTL] in JSON Schema, and the upcoming
   DDI - Cross Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) in UML.

Current:
   The specifications DDI Codebook [DDI-C] and DDI Lifecycle [DDI-L] are
   expressed in XML Schema; DDI Extended Knowledge Organization System
   (XKOS) [DDI-XKOS] in OWL/RDF; Structured Data Transformation
   Language (SDTL) [DDI-SDTL] in JSON Schema; and the upcoming DDI Cross
   Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) in UML.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] May we remove the entry for DDI Alliance from Section 2?  
The definition is cyclical, as it essentially states "DDI Alliance: 
Alliance for the DDI".  In addition, DDI Alliance is explained in the 
introduction as follows: 

   The DDI Alliance is an international collaboration dedicated to
   establishing metadata standards and semantic products for
   describing social science data, data covering human activity, and
   other data based on observational methods.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Would re-arranging the top of this diagram to make it 
easier to read retain the original meaning, or is there another way to 
re-arrange?

Original:
   Client  NS for       NS for             NS for         DDI
   services
           urn.arpa     ddialliance.org    example1.edu   for
   us.ddia1
     |       |               |               |               |

Perhaps:
   Client   NS          NS                NS            DDI
   services for         for               for           for
            urn.arpa    ddialliance.org   example1.edu  us.ddia1
     |       |               |               |               |
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - The ordered list element uses only one number per 
step.  Therefore, previously combined steps are now repeated as two 
separate steps.  Does the following update retain the original meaning, or 
is there another way this text should be updated?  Please review, as the 
same text is used for steps in which the arrows point in opposite 
directions.  

Original:
     1.  The name server (NS) of IANA for the domain "urn.arpa."
           is reached with the request "ddia1.us.ddi.urn.arpa." for
           the DDI agency "us.ddia1".

     2./3. The request is delegated to the name server for
           "ddialliance.org".

     4./5. The request is delegated to the name server for
           "example1.edu" (domain of the DDI agency "us.ddia1").
        *****************************************************

Current:
   1.  The name server (NS) of IANA for the domain "urn.arpa." is
       reached with the request "ddia1.us.ddi.urn.arpa." for the DDI
       agency "us.ddia1".

   2.  The request is delegated to the name server for
       "ddialliance.org".

   3.  The request is delegated to the name server for
       "ddialliance.org".

   4.  The request is delegated to the name server for "example1.edu"
       (domain of the DDI agency "us.ddia1").

   5.  The request is delegated to the name server for "example1.edu"
       (domain of the DDI agency "us.ddia1").
        *****************************************************
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] RFC 2483 was cited in the text but was not included in the 
references section. RFC 2843 (Proxy-PAR) was referenced, but not cited in 
the body of the document.  We believe the numbers may have been tranposed, 
so we updated the reference to point to 2483.  Please let us know if any 
corrections are needed. 

Original:
   Examples of potential services are listed below. The services and
   appropriate service tags need to be defined in future. The
   mentioned service tags are from [RFC2483].
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Are the following still expected to happen, or have they 
already happened? 

A) Original (Section 3.6):
   The DDI Alliance will promote a service discovery system for
   identifying available services connected to DDI agencies using the
   Domain Name System (DNS).

Perhaps: 
   The DDI Alliance promotes a service discovery system for
   identifying available services connected to DDI agencies using the
   Domain Name System (DNS).


B) Original (Section 5.1):
   The
   DDI Alliance will maintain a registry of the assigned values for
   the DDI agency identifier used in the NSS.

Perhaps: 
   The
   DDI Alliance maintains a registry of the assigned values for
   the DDI agency identifier used in the NSS.


C) Original (Section 5.3): 
   The DDI Alliance will promote software for the resolution of DDI
   agency identifiers and service discovery.

Perhaps: 
   The DDI Alliance promotes software for the resolution of DDI
   agency identifiers and service discovery.

Is the "software" the same as the "service discovery system" mentioned 
earlier (in A above)?  We are having trouble parsng "the resolution of DDI 
agency identifiers and service discovery" - please consider whether the 
text can be clarified. 
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] Is this an IANA action?  We see urn.arpa registered at 
https://www.iana.org/domains/arpa, but the refernce is RFC 3405.  
Normally, we verify that the actions described in the document match what 
appears in the IANA registries.  If this is an IANA-related action, please 
point us to the relevant registry.  If this is not an IANA-related action, 
may we move this text outside of the IANA Considerations section?  
Additionally, would you like to include a link to 
<https://registry.ddialliance.org/> for clarity? 

Original: 
   The registration for "ddi" in the "URN.ARPA" zone is approved.
   Requests for the domain ddi.urn.arpa will be delegated to the name
   servers of the DDI Alliance.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated DDI-related citation tags for 
readability.  For example: 

[DDIC] -> [DDI-C]
[DDIL] -> [DDI-L]
[DDIXKOS] -> [DDI-XKOS]
[DDIID] -> [DDI-ID]
[DDIALL] -> [DDI-ALL]

Please let us know any concerns. 
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] It is unclear which version of the DDI Codebook is 
intended by this reference. 

   [DDIC]    DDI Codebook, DDI Alliance 2000-2014,
             <https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-Codebook/>.

We see the the following between 2000-2014.  Do you intend to refer to all 
of these?  Or perhaps you want to always refer to the most current version 
of the document? 

- Version 1.0 was released in 2000
- Version 2.0 was released in 2003
- Version 2.1 was released in 2006
- Version 2.5 
https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-Codebook/ shows "DDI Codebook 2.5 (under review)."  
https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-Codebook/2.5/ shows 
"Published: 2012-01-17."  This page also mentions "Version 2.6 REVIEW PERIOD through 2022-10-31."  

Note that https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-Codebook/ only provides 
entry points for versions 2.1 and 2.5.  Please clarify.  If you intend to 
refer to more than one version, perhaps this can be clarified in the text.  

This document is cited/mentioned as follows:

Current: 
   The specifications DDI Codebook [DDI-C] and DDI Lifecycle [DDI-L] are
   expressed in XML Schema; DDI Extended Knowledge Organization System
   (XKOS) [DDI-XKOS] in OWL/RDF; Structured Data Transformation Language
   (SDTL) [DDI-SDTL] in JSON Schema; and the upcoming DDI Cross Domain
   Integration (DDI-CDI) in UML.

   Information on the DDI specifications (DDI-C, DDI-L, XKOS, Controlled
   Vocabularies, and SDTL) can be found in the standards section of the
   DDI Alliance website [DDI-ALL].
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] Please note the reference for [ABNFPFE] to reflect what 
appears on https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf.  This page is a replacement 
for http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi.  (Note that 
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi redirects to
https://authors.ietf.org/). 

Current:
   [ABNFPFE]  IETF, "IETF Author Tools - ABNF Tools",
              <https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf>.
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] For reference [IS11179], the provided URL resulted in
"Oops! That page can’t be found." We have updated as follows.  Please let us know any objections. 

Original: 
   [IS11179] ISO/IEC 11179 Information technology - Metadata
             registries (MDR) - Part 6: Registration,
             <http://metadata-standards.org/11179/>.

Current:
   [IS11179]  ISO, "Information technology - Metadata registries (MDR) - Part
              6: Registration", ISO/IEC 11179-6:2023, January 2023,
              <http://metadata-standards.org/11179/>.
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] We have removed the following text and corresponding 
referenced, as the RFC was prepared using XML.  

Original: 
   This document was prepared using the Word template 2-Word-
   v2.0.template.dot [RFC5385].
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] The following references were not cited in the text. We 
have removed the reference entries.  Please let us know if any corrections 
are needed. 

   [RFC2026] 
   [RFC5378]
   [RFC8179]
-->


16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode 
element in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of 
preferred values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) 
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us
know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not
set.

Also, let us know if any items marked as <sourcecode> should instead by 
<artwork>. 
-->


17) <!-- [rfced] The following abbreviations were not expanded in the document.  Please let us know if the expansion on the right is correct and/or if you would like to add a reference for any of these.  

   N2C - URN to URC
   N2R - URN to Resource
   REST - Representational State Transfer 
   UML - Unified Modeling Language
-->


18) <!-- [rfced] It is unclear whether there is a difference between the 
hyphenated and nonhyphenated forms in cases of the terms below (outside of 
sourcecode).  Please review these occurrences in the body of the document 
and let us know any updates consistency updates are needed. 

   agency-identifier vs. agency identifier
   resource-identifier vs. resource identifier 
   version-identifier vs. version identifier
-->


19) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: 
   man-in-the-middle
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor



On Dec 4, 2023, at 1:40 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/12/04

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9517.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9517

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9517 (draft-urn-ddi-06)

Title            : A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI)
Author(s)        : J. Wackerow
WG Chair(s)      : 
Area Director(s) :