Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-adid-urn-01

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 28 November 2016 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FA312A030; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:28:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RHOxXC45l-nH; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2A512A031; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d2so27164386pfd.0; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:28:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=X/9KCzGQoGt06Ve2Sd4fFNV5ceFx3Nru7JEZ7On/LkM=; b=hHr3G0meSvCkWKNG1K5FmdG4Q2CSuPhG/9fQJxN8p8Vn7AjqRKfp2A2EX5nA79d7tj hmhaCnV1snc2IM5qOQK6EZunlOK8FSH03G+k3QxszaBESTkvLQziyk+qVlOR6zDSIOQV euhiK6Zm/4zq44wnGPKNxAifyPgsXwk6/aoqLWXSwJS6s5RBSTdQOY0EfdFpCBttvNxy zbJ8tvbJjhedzwAilU19KRuAydMLi1xnfHjGdfTFSRcHyJH8IixYvKZdWY+gQdGQ7P9q IApQMysFkWTVpRzCntvUKScwoKay/81kjzSXhS3hzOFY6Zi31F9sZxHrqtigob9h43gO ak9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=X/9KCzGQoGt06Ve2Sd4fFNV5ceFx3Nru7JEZ7On/LkM=; b=f4WgAvMtoc0F2hHWIBaNsT3T3805xOfGYitvj9KsagD4ZGYwqcoJcAIFgzx6BrZ3yH T0QwumU5bqMD8gyLM1BSBr0Sl1ECIG4qGyHFE/csfGwReAChQMHUVzJflClQgs6xUA9t AHDJYPdGDz2/T222MfxokQQtFRe5Hn2wIg+zyrARAp936PmXv70u0ooAc5aC0I+KrjYJ rvyl+Sbz2I3tVhCNJg84a5NXAZD91NxIf/Op4Wf7CP1G41CDRteEruieNb8UAcK6k+Gj zZs3MH+2FPQkUhigZPQqohiqydPOod/6RJj84OJpzJgEVdP+/6T0YBLlJZkf8BGa754s e0YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03MseYU0+JxkCqR3c4CssNuX1giRDcyiSR6tGLH8eZe+uEuo5/CRD/M334BdRNiKw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g16mr54580817pli.134.1480372087759; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:28:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by with ESMTPSA id b29sm71790726pgn.48.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:28:07 -0800 (PST)
To: Jarrett Wold <>,, General Area Review Team <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:28:05 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-adid-urn-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 22:28:18 -0000

Hi Jarrett,

Thanks for your reply - follow-ups in line:
On 29/11/2016 11:04, Jarrett Wold wrote:
> Hi -
> Thanks for the comments.  Please see my responses.
> I used the EIDR draft as a template
> (  Ad-ID is similar,
> but for advertisements where as EDIR is for program content. 
>> Major Issues:
>> -------------
>> This is an informative document that states "Ad-ID is the industry
>> standard..." but doesn't provide a clear normative reference to an industry
>> standard at that point. I assume that would be [SMPTERP2092-1]. If so it
>> should be referenced right there. Unfortunately it's behind a pay wall
>> ( The IESG needs to confirm
>> whether that's acceptable.
>    SMPTE can readily make SMPTE RP 2092-1 available privately to IESG
> members (through a liaison).
>    Note that SMPTE and ISO exceptionally make standards available for free
> upon request.

OK, this isn't necessarily a show-stopper, but I just wanted to be sure
that the IESG is aware of the situation.

>>>   An Ad-ID Identifier consists of a unique eleven character string
>>>   or a unique twelve character string (video codes only).
>> What's a "character"? ASCII or UTF-8?
> It is Alphanumeric. Our character coding is UTF-8.  Im not sure if this is
> needed.

Well, neither am I! As I said, I'm not a URN expert, but it seems to me
that avoiding any ambiguity by *specifying* UTF-8 would be better.
RFC5234 leaves it open:
"In certain contexts, a specific mapping (encoding) of values into a
character set (such as ASCII) will be specified."
RFC2141 section 2.2 also leaves it open by allowing for translation
from non-URN characters.

>> The informative reference [Ad-ID-INTRO] doesn't seem to know whether it's a
>> technical appendix or a reference, and the URL that it cites is unhelpful.
>> The material at seems to
>> be what is needed but partly duplicates what is in the draft. Maybe this
>> material is only given here because the actual SMPTE standard costs more
>> than $100? If so, I think it should be clearly labelled as informational
>> material and that only the SMPTE document is definitive.
>   This is meant to just be an introductory text for what an Ad-ID is.  That
> being said, perhaps a link to here is more relevant:
>  This is also referenced
> in SMPTE RP 2092-1

Yes, I think so. If the reader is from the SMPTE world, it may not help,
but for readers from the IETF world I think it will do so.


> Jarrett