On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > 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. Because the shepherd (me) was unavailable last week. I'll provide a writeup in the next few days. However, the short version is that this document was slated to be completed by the URNbis WG but was decoupled from URNbis deliverables because of changes we made to the namespace registration process between RFC 3406 and RFC 8141 (i.e., IETF consensus is no longer required for registration of formal namespaces) and because there was still a desire to update the definition of URNs for national bibliographic numbers to align with modernized syntax from RFC 8141. > 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). Agreed. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
