Last Call Review of draft-adid-urn-01
review-adid-urn-01-opsdir-lc-wu-2017-01-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-adid-urn |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2016-12-19 | |
| Requested | 2016-11-23 | |
| Authors | jwold@ad-id.org | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-03-08 (Latest revision 2017-01-17) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -01
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -01 by Watson Ladd (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -01 by Qin Wu (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Qin Wu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-adid-urn by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2017-01-10 |
review-adid-urn-01-opsdir-lc-wu-2017-01-10-00
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
model.
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
media.”
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
RFC2141?
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.
-Qin