Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 06 June 2018 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD801130DD1; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=sXJM84zi; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=HGW4+5ep
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4x9DmRH5pj9Y; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13F6B130DD0; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7608521CBC; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 16:55:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:55:23 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=6nBsT2agG5v3G35Ctj6pBMDYGVXOj Zbx/9bRmDyzH6s=; b=sXJM84ziKCjaao3AZ6HEKDDQEuTleyOYGNQu48H7gT4Y6 e4lFWHNwjcbZNGNlZxFXZjXEZwUgGDpMMkSlL6X5ujiOLn7ZfYt3mXj9LeWo3Cff TfvP1vmd765BKIzB7J7WKZ8gK3sUUT2G7mOXmtoQgbAS68w5R/xsuJq9LYnQUKev Roixa6YwfSfZToBSQq2JeQWhljsDcCdS0gwF1d3GKzt1WfvZmp2i69VqAsudB6OV DtvvKQhIQbYYGtyH4qHaiGP1cNx/4siLD7ANg0yPdqMyuIeFSExaIERlDiYMV9yT XjSA/DaitTJfhI683wjkuNkBnWFC82rMDAvll2r+g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=6nBsT2 agG5v3G35Ctj6pBMDYGVXOjZbx/9bRmDyzH6s=; b=HGW4+5epiqyGsslez1JIY2 FtdvjfXYDLogEf/i+3pBrbBg+xm5qm/kKSAnI9lWRaU/U+r7dlQSCaPqcZDoMkPj 95ZiSNvyM3SczMgkkG/CBDinpEZJVE5BI1ekjYt7Bp+EopDVWdtvMWyk2MHWIqxR ZK/6z90yZKR/wIfkd2UGXUIuLNikMLxCbtluDt4WiZF4vtDUlARSOSaOqSz5DeZT 4zOlt0ZKCM40C6VUE2BVNxgVPtGRuyKYp6IeMTmh6kf2B/FhFd8LZbUMNkPBNEVb 1079ZE3gSYXg9xX+e9P6iarCS7naMWo5mba4bnutobeOTpXGa8A/l4VA74wn6mOA ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O0oYWyza3UlqCnxhZTnC0gc7_P4HE-yiVJIbC1Ztr1LWfbIskFsUvA>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O0oYW71ITfkGU7Iq_Khk0JZiYjgV83n_pmd-GpHrFoNQVXy4V4EN1Q>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O0oYW6w0LRhyJjrahfNp5lM8pbOtQ3kVfyvuVvhrU_zco9t_KzF09g>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O0oYW6HJ1ubH_h88HE4Zd7zv1L8E8aieBcEUg_APOFdS5dJSJMVMgQ>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O0oYW1bfUxP_4hJ6VMARdw0xwxSF6qska6JMw2RMF8bbCIZuGHg2yQ>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:O0oYW9zGbhrQSzaeNL1DpgOAcs5gRZRCXLTE5GPtUirfhnuhMWXjqQ>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:O0oYWzcYMTu6SsITRn1VYhCeSMgPXJkz65TwEdadT5vbgFHZPKHFMw>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.94]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D3814E43E8; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 16:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <d3b228f6-70d5-1439-4b91-ec73f0b05917@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:55:21 -0400
Cc: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AB8DC245-A7D1-4274-8C61-BD9810A41A51@cooperw.in>
References: <152519972821.24804.13749609226427815361@ietfa.amsl.com> <74cdeafb-04eb-feb7-3768-5986d2bbca28@stpeter.im> <50132b4e-886e-0f02-cda1-69f9c4a6f69e@nostrum.com> <d3b228f6-70d5-1439-4b91-ec73f0b05917@mozilla.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/zKDW2gRyRt7bmQ8E5EwKkcrKXag>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 20:55:31 -0000
Robert, thanks for your reviews and thanks to Peter and others for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot but supported Ben’s DISCUSS. I don’t think we can use the 2119 language for national libraries. Alissa > On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Hi Robert, thanks for checking. > > Although I tend to agree with you about 2119 language, as I understand > the intent of the author (and of the community of practice that uses > national bibliography numbers) is for this document (as RFC 3188 before > it) to define how NBNs are used in the field. > > Peter > > > On 6/4/18 9:07 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> Thanks Peter! >> >> The editorial pass looks really good. It let me spot a nit I missed before: >> >> at >> >> " necessary, a resource in outdated file format is migrated into a more" >> >> you probably want "in an outdated file format" >> >> In that paragraph, you added some MAYs that go against my first original >> point, telling the library what they may do rather than constraining a >> protocol. It looks like you removed some of these as you went through >> the rest of the document, but added others - I'm not easily seeing what >> drove the decision in each spot. That said, per John's note, it's a >> conscious decision of the folks working on the document to use 2119 this >> way, so I'll let it go. >> >> RJS >> >> >> On 6/4/18 9:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> Robert, some fixes were posted over the weekend - if you have a chance, >>> please check the diff here: >>> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-01.txt >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >>>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >>>> Review result: Ready with Issues >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>> >>>> Document: draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00 >>>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >>>> Review Date: 2018-05-01 >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-21 >>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>>> >>>> Summary: Almost ready for publication as an Information RFC but with >>>> issues >>>> that need to be addressed before publication. >>>> >>>> Why is there no shepherd's writeup? It would be good to explicitly >>>> let the >>>> community know why this is proceeding as an individual draft. >>>> >>>> Issues: >>>> >>>> The document uses 2119 in some inappropriate ways. It's fine to use >>>> 2119 terms >>>> when defining how to construct NBN URNs. It's not ok to use them in >>>> places like >>>> "the national library MUST", and "A national library ... SHOULD >>>> specify ... a >>>> policy" and "libraries MUST agree". Please find a way to say that if >>>> a national >>>> library wants things to work, they will or should do these things. >>>> >>>> While I agree with the values expressed, it seems odd for the URN >>>> registration >>>> to try to put constraints on fees that a national library might collect >>>> (especially using a 2119 SHOULD). >>>> >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>> >>>> The section calling out this draft replaces >>>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn should be removed (its enough to >>>> add >>>> RFC editor instructions to the draft or to the ballot writeup). >>>> >>>> "identifiers identifiers" occurs in the second paragraph on page 4. >>>> >>>> The ABNF in "Declaration of syntactic structure of NSS part" needs to be >>>> reformatted to meet the RFC constraints on line length. >>>> >>>> Consider "physical" instead of "hand-held" in the first paragraph of >>>> 3.1. >>>> A national library may choose to assign an NBN to something too large >>>> to pick >>>> up. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… Alissa Cooper
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… John C Klensin
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ha… Peter Saint-Andre