Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 01 May 2018 18:35 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BF9126B6D; Tue, 1 May 2018 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.79.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152519972821.24804.13749609226427815361@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 11:35:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GrxO9qmtMVjJB0JD8UOzoO9t4ok>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 18:35:28 -0000
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.
- Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-r… Robert Sparks
- Re: Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-n… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-n… John C Klensin
- Re: Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-n… Peter Saint-Andre