A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Formal Namespace for the Latvian National Government Integration Project
RFC 4617

Section 2.3: "Affiliation" != "University Degree"

Section 2.4: should define its formal grammar, or preferably, use and reference an already-defined one, such as RFC4234

This REALLY needs to be checked for idnits.

I believe there's a syntax error remaining in the BNF: 

OLD:
<NSS>            ::= <IVIS Org ID>:<ResID - suffix>

NEW:
<NSS>            ::= <IVIS Org ID> ":" <ResID - suffix>

but that's only the obvious one; there may be more subtle problems and since we don't have a checker for this grammar I can't say for sure.

None of the listed references are cited in the text. Either they are useful,
and should be cited, or they are useless, and should not be listed.

Also see idnits listing below.

Comments from Gen-ART reviewer Francis Dupont:

- the document should specify which kind of namespace registration is
   asked for (I've assume "formal")

BC: The implication of submitting a draft RFC is that this is a formal registration, under RFC 3406. But it would be better to say so.

 - so there must be an IANA consideration asking for the registration

BC: Correct. IANA has flagged this to Ted Hardie, so I will not make it a DISCUSS.

 - and compliance to RFC 3406 should be more evident (i.e., stressed)
 - note that I am not in urn-nid ML so I don't know if this step of
   the procedure was done nor if there were interesting comments...
   (I've checked the urn-nid archive, the procedure was followed
    in a burial silence (:-), only Leslie Daigle helped the author)
 - 2.2 page 2: the declared registrant should be an organization
   and the human the contact person for obvius stability reasons
 - 2.22 page 3: un -> and
 - Acknowledgments page 5: there is only one author who should not be
   acknowledged (:-)
 - 7.1 page 5: perhaps the RFC 2141 should be referenced
 - 7.2 [3] page 5: misplaced closing "
 - 7.2 [7] page 5: where are the acknowlegdments to see?

----

idnits 1.92 

tmp/INFdraft-kornijenko-ivis-urn-00.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
    
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement. 
  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78
    -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
  * There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
    document.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of
    Shadow Directories -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching
    beginning. Boilerplate error?
  - The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1
    longer page, the longest (page 2) being 80 lines

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.

  Experimental warnings:
  - Unused Reference: [4] is defined on line 220, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: [5] is defined on line 223, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: [6] is defined on line 227, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: [7] is defined on line 230, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: [1] is defined on line 207, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: [2] is defined on line 211, but not referenced
  - Unused Reference: [3] is defined on line 216, but not referenced

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information.

Another leftover from a previous I-D being copied from?  The author might want to acknowledge somebody besides himself/herself in the acknowledgements section.

There should be a reference in the security consideration section to the considerations that do apply.

The author acknowledges himself in the acknowlegements section. I think in general that if someone with ID/RFC writing experience wanted to edit this, then the document would benefit. However, the language nits to me didn't add up to a "Discuss" vote.