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 Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-12-19
Requested 2016-11-23
I-D last updated 2017-01-10
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 Qin Wu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-adid-urn by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-01-10
Hi, Authors:

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document specifies the syntax of the Ad-ID-URN namespace.
There is no major issue. I believe this document is ready for publication. Here
are a few editorial comments:

1.       Section 1, paragraph 2

Data model is overused nowadays. I believe it is not referred to YANG data

2.       Section 1, paragraph 2

Is adverstiser, product, commercial title  included in Ad-ID Identifier or
URN-ADID or part of URN Namespace definition? It is not clear to me. How
registrant of the namespace is related to advertiser? Where is the metadata
defined or described in section 2? If metadata is not part of this document,
please make this clear in the text.

3.       Section 1, paragraph 2 said:

” Ad-ID Identifiers are unique codes for

    each advertising asset digitally, and applies that code to all


Is that code referred to unique codes for each advertising asset?

Suggest to split this sentence into two short sentences, for example

Ad-ID Identifiers are unique codes for each advertising asset digitally. Those
unique codes are applied to all media.

4.       Section 5

Where the syntactic and lexical equivalence is specified? In RFC 3406 or

If yes, please make this clear in the text.

5.       Section 7.2

Complimentary Definition Codes  gives me a lot of confusion. Can you give an
example of Complimentary Definition Codes? How Complimentary Definition Codes
is related to Ad-ID Identifier? Is Complimentary Definition Codes represented
using one character? It looks matching SD, HD and/or 3D codes are examples of
CDCs and CDCs can be generated based on existing Ad-ID identifier.