RE: Comments on draft-adid-urn-00

Jarrett Wold <> Wed, 23 March 2016 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4993C12D5DE for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.691
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.691 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, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FaU7cdHtBQPD for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29CF812D5D6 for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u190so32575581pfb.3 for <>; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aZ3dJPePzmW2efIWBsWuNvESSKi9hsHzXvnh7QKxcpY=; b=NPJ6VVtzKavocnIwLuPj5k3FIZvq15J5LOElfG7bDADMX/+XkAOpGSV4lveUR3+qaJ jMz4PJzFG8VmlRUhgMlu+x8BK0n0W9t7sAA+yPd6rPlhzSpkJUt0ONuOQtmMn8R2xFcI /94BzLTai/1FUmnH3JK0JhSqT0iNwwpbS5czs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aZ3dJPePzmW2efIWBsWuNvESSKi9hsHzXvnh7QKxcpY=; b=VGbEKAq5DpVwTTI1GG5Lm98gHwAwPomEutDvWVIULBr7AlARlp+hf+4er+V46xn9VD 3vOtxh2yYui4Z2VlM3tj4TA1V1L+VXR3flYpXOm1iFuBdTVZwJP/Y6iTww7GYjGJlwtG wEoMA8lmkFhFvzFoUy2V/9d0tWq6w5RUPLPNgky8WDcHVgC/aLYXP3UBvITSG0wPhR0g qVRp7knw0lDb8Lbh6L2/TtqDdad86S+/vBu9aa5bA7ydYO1JS0yq5XWQctNaUgSAaLED daRnwCQ4PY8jLiCsDAbk74P0MqhrwdLRdqfBEri7FLqRH3Tr3z/rQujBW3k6dHZ6QyGA jY4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLWZY906fP15JvPiWjNn4MSkS7RUNBBG2Mk104OCNums/Wwa0J6fGeOs/Tp3X5FQwaCU/i2ZsrJjGhWTSdD
X-Received: by with SMTP id e85mr5117631pfj.121.1458746680726; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jarrett Wold <>
References: <> ( <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJ3xaDQ1RwFcsnWEeBMf8XCPFIDzp4ao/5A
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:25:27 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-adid-urn-00
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11354ce8b9c2f6052eb8ed29
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:24:48 -0000

Hello Dale -
I tried to submit as this as an ID, however, the site is saying the ID
Tool won't be available until 4/3.

I made a lot of changes to the document based on the feedback. I removed
the references to the GUID (probably not needed) and hopefully clarified
more within the doc and references.  Thank you again for your feedback.

Please see the attached draft for review.  Hopefully, this draft is a lot

Jarrett Wold | Ad-ID LLC
Director of Technology & Platforms

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale R. Worley []
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:44 PM
To: Jarrett Wold <>
Subject: Comments on draft-adid-urn-00

Here are a bunch of comments on draft-adid-urn-00.  Overall the concept
seems fine, but the document needs cleaning up.

The title contains "Adverting".  Have you run the draft through a spelling

      The following is an example of an Ad-ID Identifier in its
      canonical representation:


      The canonical URN representation of the same Ad-ID Identifier is:


      The 32-bit unique representation of the Ad-ID is:


This example is difficult to follow.  The first item is straightforward,
as it is an 11 character string.  But the next item isn't clear:  by
definition, a "canonical" representation is one representation chosen from
among many.  You can say that both


are URN representations of the Ad-ID identifier, but only one of them can
be canonical.  Also, it would be helpful if you explained why both URNs
correspond to ABCD0001000, or at least provide a reference to some
description which will explain it.

But, reading, it seems
that ABCD0001000H is not the *same* Ad-ID as ABCD0001000, but rather the
Ad-ID for the corresponding High Definition version of the asset.  You
need to clarify this so that the example is not misleading.

It is not clear how the further "32-bit unique representation"
corresponds to the preceding three representations.  It's reasonably clear
what "32-bit" means as the URN contains a sequence of 8 hex digits, but
it's completely unclear what is "unique" about it.

Remember, this is the introduction, which should be readable by people who
don't already understand the technology, including people who don't
already understand Ad-IDs in all their forms.

There's some general trouble about the indentation of text.  For instance,
it seems that "The identifier structure is as follows:"
should be 4 spaces to the left, "Non alphanumeric ("special") characters
and spaces are not valid within an Ad-ID." should have a blank like above
it and be moved 3 spaces to the left, and "A Canonical Full Ad-ID ..."
should be moved 1 space to the left.

This text has some redundancy that should be removed:

          A Canonical Full Ad-ID Identifier shall conform to the syntax
          specified below using ABNF (as specified in IETF RFC 5234):
          The URN representation URN-ADID of an Ad-ID Identifier
          conforms to the syntax (expressed using ABNF (as specified in

The production

          adid_prefix = (ALPHA / %x30-39) 4*alphanum
               ; first character not zero

is incorrect on two counts:  As written, the first character can be zero
(which ix %x30).  The strings generated are 5 characters.  What you want

          adid_prefix = (ALPHA / %x31-39) 3*alphanum
               ; first character not zero

The instances of ALPHA and DIGIT might be intended to be "alpha" and
"digit".  Or do you mean to reference the productions ALPHA and DIGIT in
RFC 5234?  If so, you should eliminate the productions for "alpha"
and "digit" in the draft.

The BNF does not show how the "urn:adid:cuid" URNs are generated.  As the
BNF now stands, those examples are invalid.

      Ad-ID URNs are resolved via URN resolvers run under Ad-ID's

It would be helpful here to provide a pointer to the documentation for the

      The validity of an URN-ADID can be checked using Ad-ID's web