Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review, Dan.

> 1.       The document does not expand the acronym NATO at the first
> occurrence. Moreover, in section 7 it mentions 'that a standards body, like
> NATO' which is misleading - as NATO is not a standards body. I suggest to
> use the full name in the title and abstract, expand the acronym at first
> occurrence and correct the text in Section 7.

The AD/shepherd agrees.

> 2.       The abstract and introduction should make clear that this is a
> request made according to RFC 3406 for a formal URN space type, as described
> in Section 4.3 of RFC 3406.

I suppose that I agree with that, too, though I think it's less
important.  But something like this should do nicely:

OLD
   This document describes a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace for
   assignment by NATO.  The current primary use is for uniquely
   identifying Extensible Markup Language (XML) artifacts that provide
   information about NATO message text formats and service
   specifications as described in various NATO standards [4],
   instructions and publications.

NEW
   This document allocates a formal Uniform Resource Name (URN)
   namespace for assignment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
   (NATO), as specified in RFC 3406.  The current primary use is for
   uniquely identifying Extensible Markup Language (XML) artifacts
   that provide information about NATO message text formats and
   service specifications as described in various NATO standards,
   instructions and publications.

END

(That also removes the reference ("[4]") in the abstract, as the RFC
Editor doesn't allow references in abstracts.)  And then a similar
change in the Introduction section.

> I could not find in the summary written by the AD shepherd an indication
> whether this review occurred.

The AD/shepherd apologises profusely for his typo: the writeup said
"uri-review", where it should have said "urn-nid".  I've corrected the
error in the writeup, and, yes, the review happened.

Ira, I'm going to move the document into IESG Evaluation state now.
Please update the I-D as soon as you can with the above minor changes.
Thanks.

Barry