Last Call Review of draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02
review-bbf-bbf-urn-02-genart-lc-halpern-2016-12-01-00

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

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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: