Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

Request Review of draft-bbf-bbf-urn
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-11-04
Requested 2016-10-07
Authors Barbara Stark , Dave Sinicrope , William Lupton
I-D last updated 2016-12-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-bbf-bbf-urn by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 04)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2016-12-01
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-bbf-bbf-urn-02
     Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespaces for Broadband Forum
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 14-October-2016
IETF LC End Date: 4-November-2016
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an 
Informational RFC.

Major issues:
     RFC 3406 states that the namespace considerations section should 
indicate why a new namespace is needed.  While this is pretty obvious, 
the text does not actually say anything in that section to explain it.
     In particular, I would expect that section to explain why 3 NIDs 
are needed rather than just 1.

Minor issues:
     The template in RFC 3406 indicates the the section in each NID on 
the Process of identifier assignment should "detail the mechanism and or 
authorities for assigning URNs to resources."  The draft simply says 
that the BBF will provide procedures.  Do those procedures exist?  If 
not, there seems to be a minor problem.  If they do exist, it would seem 
sensible to include a pointer to the place where the BBF publicly 
documents those procedures, so that people using this information who 
might want to register something can understand what the rules and 
expectations are. (I realize that the RFC 6289 example this is based on 
did not include such a pointer, which is why I am making this a minor 
comment instead of a major one.)

Nits/editorial comments: