Skip to main content

A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
draft-goodwin-iso-urn-03

Yes

(Ted Hardie)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2006-10-26) Unknown
I believe that
                   [[":" status] ":" edition]
is more clear than
                   ([":" status ":" edition] / [":" edition])
(in docidentifier) - it's a little confusing to have two optional alternatives

Are all these version numbers guaranteed to be only one digit - e.g., iteration, edition, simpleversion, baseversion, supplnumber, supplversion?  Could there ever be a document with, say, 10 amendments?  Would it be better to use DIGITS than DIGIT for some of these?
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-10-25) Unknown
Gen-ART review comments will be placed at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-goodwin-iso-urn-00-chisholm.txt and some clarifications are suggested
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-10-24) Unknown
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 14:
>     Table of Contents

  page numbers?


Section 2.4., paragraph 2:
>    The NSS has the following ABNF [RFC2234] specification:

  Should be updated to use RFC4234 ABNF (RFC2234 is obsolete).


Section 2.4., paragraph 18:
>       Revisions of this specification may define additional values.

  Would it make sense to create IANA registries for these lists, instead
  of requiring to obsolete this document when an extensions is needed?


Section 3.2., paragraph 0:
>     3.2.  Alternative naming schemes

  Move to appendix?


Section 5., paragraph 1:
>    (responsibility of the IANA registry)

  responsibility of the authors
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown