The IESG wrote: > <draft-goodwin-iso-urn-02.txt> as an Informational RFC The draft says "Intended status: Standards Track", what's correct ? RFC 3406 states: "The RFC need not be standards- track". Is the fourth paragraph in the introduction from "Every" up to "withdrawn" supposed to reflect an IETF consensus ? It talks about "democratic framework", "consensus", and similar magic words. The ABNF doesn't pass validation, <comment> can't be folded, just add ";" in front of folded lines. And there can't be no <elements> at all in a rule, proposed fix: -| techelement = ; unspecified -| -| isodefined = ; unspecified +| techelement = <unspecified> +| +| isodefined = <unspecified> It would be interesting to see the URNs for the "normative references" [ISODIR-1], [ISODIR-2], [ISODIR-S], and [ISOGUIDE69] in action, together with a corresponding URI. BTW, ISO Guide 69:1999, 8 pages available as PDF for 56 CHF. I don't find the normative "directives" immediately. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf