Re: [urn] << PLEASE IGNORE THE PREV. MAIL>> Expert review needed

Oops, I meant to say “as is”.

Ben.

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> HI Roozbeh and others,
> 
> When deciding what to fix, please remember we are late in the process for non-critical fixes. When in doubt, please lean towards leaving things is”.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
>> On Apr 11, 2018, at 4:09 PM, R Atarius <r_atarius@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lars
>> 
>> please see below
>> 
>> thanks
>> Roozbeh
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
>> To: R Atarius <r_atarius@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>; "georg.mayer.huawei@gmx.com" <georg.mayer.huawei@gmx.com>; "ben@nostrum.com" <ben@nostrum.com>; "jbakker@blackberry.com" <jbakker@blackberry.com>; "Dale R. Worley (worley@ariadne.com)" <worley@ariadne.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:28 AM
>> Subject: RE: << PLEASE IGNORE THE PREV. MAIL>> [urn] Expert review needed
>> 
>> Hi Rozbeh,
>> 
>> Just a minor comment from me (but I'll read the complete draft when the new version is published):
>> 
>> On Friday, April 06, 2018 1:42 AM, R Atarius [mailto:r_atarius@yahoo.com] wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> 4.2.3.  Check Digit
>>> 
>>>  This is a single hexadecimal digit (bits 1-4 of octet 8) and is used
>>>  as assurance of integrity in error-prone operations, e.g. when used
>>>  with certain types of readers during inventory management operations.
>>>  The check digit is not transmitted by the mobile equipment and are
>>>  not used in the MEID URN.
>>> 
>>> In section 4.2, for completeness, you give a lot of information that is
>>> not strictly required.  However you don't give the really non-trivial
>>> bit of information:  the formula for the check digit.  After reading
>>> this section, I was left curious what the check digit formula actually
>>> is!
>>> 
>>> [Roozbeh]: OK but can I leave it as it is?
>> 
>> 
>> I think that technically you could, but I also agree with Dale that it might be confusing to supply non-required information. Since the check digit is not used in the MEID URN, it might be better to omit this paragraph or to rephrase it as
>> 
>> "This is a single hexadecimal digit (bits 1-4 of octet 8). The check digit is not transmitted by the mobile equipment and is not used in the MEID URN."
>> 
>> [Roozbeh] I believe that's how I started but I received comments about its functionality and that's why I added that sentence. I am good either way. If that makes you, Dale and IETF community satisfied then I can remove that sentence. Please let me know.
>> 
>> **********************************************************************************************************************
>> 
>> Looking more closely at section 4.2, it feels a bit awkward that you first define the parts of the MEID format and then go on to put them together. You might want to consider rephrasing as follows:
>> 
>> 4.2 MEID Format
>> The MEID format is 15 hexadecimal digits encoded in 8 octets as defined in [S.R0048-A]. The first eight hexadecimal digits constitute the manufacturer code, the next six hexadecimal digits the serial number within the manufacturer code. The last hexadecimal digit is a check digit. For more details on the hexadecimal encoding cf. 4.2.4.
>> 
>> 4.2.4 Hexadecimal Encoding
>> The following figure ... [X.S0008-A].
>> 
>> [Roozbeh] I think that is what is called a "hanging section", since there should not be any text below 4.2 when there are 4.2.1, 4.2.2, etc. I can create a new subsection as "4.2.1 Overview"  with the text you proposed and shift other subsection with 0.0.1. Will that help?
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Lars
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

Re: [urn] << PLEASE IGNORE THE PREV. MAIL>> Expert review needed

Attachment: signature.asc