Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-adid-urn-01

Request Review of draft-adid-urn
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-12-19
Requested 2016-11-23
I-D last updated 2016-11-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Qin Wu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-adid-urn by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 03)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2016-11-24
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

Document: draft-adid-urn-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-19
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Almost ready


I looked in vain for a shepherd's writeup or even a shepherd. I have no idea whether
this draft has gone through adequate expert review, and I am certainly not an expert.

Major Issues:

This is an informative document that states "Ad-ID is the industry standard..." but doesn't
provide a clear normative reference to an industry standard at that point. I assume that
would be [SMPTERP2092-1]. If so it should be referenced right there. Unfortunately it's
behind a pay wall (

). The IESG needs to confirm
whether that's acceptable.

>   An Ad-ID Identifier consists of a unique eleven character string
>   or a unique twelve character string (video codes only).

What's a "character"? ASCII or UTF-8?

The informative reference [Ad-ID-INTRO] doesn't seem to know whether it's a technical
appendix or a reference, and the URL that it cites is unhelpful. The material at

 seems to be what is needed but
partly duplicates what is in the draft. Maybe this material is only given here because
the actual SMPTE standard costs more than $100? If so, I think it should be clearly
labelled as informational material and that only the SMPTE document is definitive.