Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 " necessary, a resource in outdated file format is migrated into a more"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 you probably want "in an outdated file format"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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art