Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 03 July 2012 19:39 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985E611E81EC for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.503
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXD6h-k3QH0j for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E91511E81EA for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A86D4005A; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:58:00 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FF34A7E.8000206@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:39:42 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120627161737.08c30300@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120627161737.08c30300@resistor.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:39:36 -0000
On 6/27/12 5:17 PM, SM wrote: > In Section 1.1: > > "Since this RFC will be of particular interest for groups and > individuals that are interested in persistent identifiers in general > and not in continuous contact with the IETF and the RFC series, this > section gives a brief outline of the evolution of the matter over > time. Appendix E gives hints on how to obtain RFCs and related > information." > > This is unnecessary. if a person cannot find RFC XXXX, it's unlikely > that the person would find this document. > > "Registration procedures for URI Schemes originally had been laid down > in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] and guidelines for the related specification > documents were given in RFC 2718 [RFC2718]. These documents have > been obsoleted and consolidated into BCP 35, RFC 4395 [RFC4395], which > is based on, and aligned with, RFC 3986." > > The history of the registration procedures is not as important. I > suggest moving it into an appendix if the author wants to keep that > information. I found the text informative but most readers won't share > that view. At the least, I agree that moving this information to an appendix would be better. I question whether it really belongs in this document at all. > In Section 1.2: > > "This section aims at quoting requirements as identified in the past; > it does not attempt to revise or redefine these requirements, but it > gives some hints where more than a decade of experience with URNs has > shed a different light on past views. The citations below are given > here to make this document self-contained and avoid normative down- > references to old work." > > Such information might only be informative for a small subset of IETF > participants. People reading a document about URN syntax might find it > confusing. This this is a stylistic nit. I suggest targeting the > average reader. Describe the properties of URNs and move the historical > information to an appendix if the author would like to keep that. I think Section 1.2 is positively misleading. Just say "High level requirements for URNs can be found in RFC 1738." > In Section 1.3: > > "RFC 2141 does not seamlessly match current Internet Standards. The > primary objective of this document is the alignment with the URI > standard [RFC3986] and URI Scheme guidelines [RFC4395], the ABNF > standard [RFC5234] and the current IANA Guidelines [RFC5226] in > general. > > The objective should be in the Introduction Section. Move the > Historical information to the section about history. > > "For advancing the URN specification on the Internet Standards-Track, > it needs to be based on documents of comparable maturity. Therefore, > to further advancements of the formal maturity level of this RFC, it > deliberately makes normative references only to documents at Full > Standard or Best Current Practice level." > > This above is not that useful in the context of this document. Agreed. I think all of Section 1 can be condensed into a few paragraphs instead of multiple pages, and that (as SM noted) the entire document could benefit from significant editing to remove unnecessary text. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/