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

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will update the
reference for the following registration in the URN Namespace
Registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces:

Registered Formal
URN Namespaces          Value        Reference
---------------------  -----        ---------
iso                    29            [RFC-goodwin-iso-urn-02.txt]

The reference for this document is currently listed as
[RFC-goodwin-iso-urn-01.txt].

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this
document.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot discuss]
partnumber    = "-" +( DIGIT / ALPHA / "-" )
is invalid ABNF; perhaps you mean
partnumber    = "-" 1*( DIGIT / ALPHA / "-" )

[Ballot comment]
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  Should be updated to use RFC4234 ABNF (RFC2234 is obsolete).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