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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

This looks reasonable, thanks for the timely response and for addressing my comments. I suggest that the editor also fixes the text in section 7. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:53 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt
> 
> 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