[Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 14 October 2016 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E413012962C; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RHAsF6zq9c6P; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B25612954D; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C71E240C9F; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1476478167; bh=XRdWZ9MDY9MD3bXlD4Ek+qApWYjJgQkh7oTZAhDTm5c=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=NGEnXqcHUqXUq/uX2QwKbsdklltlXLih0ZDi4zcmSL20KooDswVd+N+J8QRj8FwN3 U4NOrVY+eIOX32huTxny0pYsKG5cfFitsIfnL61l1XEEOxXQ+I/z4neJS6Ra4naPeW vYEk74JL9rWq1VuwCLn/Tgp3zwII2me/Rnx+/Vy8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF0182400E9; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-bbf-bbf-urn@ietf.org
References: <69fcc020-96bf-63e5-d32b-ebb4dc222e59@nostrum.com> <a8d23000-2861-dc58-c6c5-582afe1b7971@nostrum.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <aa837e61-0a74-d9dd-e688-d9d8481c06b8@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 16:51:38 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a8d23000-2861-dc58-c6c5-582afe1b7971@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/a7V7OZba9i5v_ZoivIpikQ8OfDU>
Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:49:29 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02
     Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespaces for Broadband Forum
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 14-October-2016
IETF LC End Date: 4-November-2016
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an 
Informational RFC.

Major issues:
     RFC 3406 states that the namespace considerations section should 
indicate why a new namespace is needed.  While this is pretty obvious, 
the text does not actually say anything in that section to explain it.
     In particular, I would expect that section to explain why 3 NIDs 
are needed rather than just 1.

Minor issues:
     The template in RFC 3406 indicates the the section in each NID on 
the Process of identifier assignment should "detail the mechanism and or 
authorities for assigning URNs to resources."  The draft simply says 
that the BBF will provide procedures.  Do those procedures exist?  If 
not, there seems to be a minor problem.  If they do exist, it would seem 
sensible to include a pointer to the place where the BBF publicly 
documents those procedures, so that people using this information who 
might want to register something can understand what the rules and 
expectations are. (I realize that the RFC 6289 example this is based on 
did not include such a pointer, which is why I am making this a minor 
comment instead of a major one.)

Nits/editorial comments: