Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
00 (System) Notify list changed from j.kornienko@abcsoftware.lv to (None)
2012-08-22
00 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bill Fenner
2006-11-08
00 (System) Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu.
2006-08-21
00 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2006-08-21
00 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4617' added by Amy Vezza
2006-08-17
00 (System) RFC published
2006-05-02
00 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-05-01
00 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-05-01
00 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-05-01
00 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-04-28
00 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-04-28
00 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-04-27
2006-04-27
00 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley
2006-04-27
00 Bill Fenner
[Ballot comment]
I believe there's a syntax error remaining in the BNF:

OLD:
            ::= :

NEW:
      …
[Ballot comment]
I believe there's a syntax error remaining in the BNF:

OLD:
            ::= :

NEW:
            ::=  ":"

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.
2006-04-27
00 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bill Fenner
2006-04-27
00 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko by Jari Arkko
2006-04-27
00 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot comment]
There should be a reference in the security consideration section to the considerations that do apply.
2006-04-27
00 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot discuss]
2006-04-27
00 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund
2006-04-27
00 Bill Fenner
[Ballot discuss]
The RFC Editor note adds the information that the grammar format is ABNF.  Since the grammar is actually some other BNF variant, either …
[Ballot discuss]
The RFC Editor note adds the information that the grammar format is ABNF.  Since the grammar is actually some other BNF variant, either the statement that it's ABNF should be removed [well, not be added] or the grammar should be rewritten in ABNF.
2006-04-27
00 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2006-04-26
00 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings
2006-04-26
00 Ross Callon
[Ballot comment]
The author acknowledges himself in the acknowlegements section. I think in general that if someone with ID/RFC writing experience wanted to edit this, …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2006-04-26
00 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ross Callon by Ross Callon
2006-04-26
00 Ted Hardie [Note]: 'Large change to the RFC Editor note; please review.' added by Ted Hardie
2006-04-26
00 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2006-04-26
00 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu
2006-04-26
00 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
None of the listed references are cited in the text. Either they are useful,
and should be cited, or they are useless, and …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2006-04-26
00 Brian Carpenter
[Ballot comment]
None of the listed references are cited in the text. Either they are useful,
and should be cited, or they are useless, and …
[Ballot comment]
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.

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
- 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?
2006-04-26
00 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-04-26
00 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.4: Would have been good to identify the syntax language used in the description. Without a formal definition it is hard to …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.4: Would have been good to identify the syntax language used in the description. Without a formal definition it is hard to know if there is errors.

Section 2.11: spellling: is "un" equal to "and"?

In general the english in this document is lacking in quality and is hard to read.

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

Reference [2] is obsoleted by RFC 3986.
2006-04-26
00 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.4: Would have been good to identify the syntax language used in the description. Without a formal definition it is hard to …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.4: Would have been good to identify the syntax language used in the description. Without a formal definition it is hard to know if there is errors.

Section 2.11: spellling: is "un" equal to "and"?

In general the english in this document is lacking in quality and is hard to read.

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


Reference [2] is obsoleted by RFC 3986.
2006-04-26
00 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot discuss]
Header field claim that this draft obsoletes RFC 3383 (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)). This …
[Ballot discuss]
Header field claim that this draft obsoletes RFC 3383 (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)). This appears to me be an error.
2006-04-26
00 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund
2006-04-24
00 Michelle Cotton
IANA Comments:

Upon publication of this document, it appears the IANA will need to register the URN
Namespace ID: "IVIS" in the following registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces …
IANA Comments:

Upon publication of this document, it appears the IANA will need to register the URN
Namespace ID: "IVIS" in the following registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces

There should be an IANA Considerations section requesting this parameter registration.

We understand this to be the only IANA Action.
2006-04-24
00 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Section 2.3: "Affiliation" != "University Degree"

Section 2.4: should be ABNF according to RFC4234

This REALLY needs to be checked for idnits.
2006-04-24
00 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Lars Eggert
2006-04-24
00 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Section 2.3: "Affiliation" != "University Degree"

Section 2.4: should be ABNF according to RFC2234

This REALLY needs to be checked for idnits.
2006-04-24
00 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot comment]
Another leftover from a previous I-D being copied from?  The author might want to acknowledge somebody besides himself/herself in the acknowledgements section.
2006-04-24
00 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lisa Dusseault by Lisa Dusseault
2006-04-24
00 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
This REALLY needs to be checked for idnits.
2006-04-24
00 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Lars Eggert by Lars Eggert
2006-04-20
00 Ted Hardie Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-04-27 by Ted Hardie
2006-04-20
00 Ted Hardie State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ted Hardie
2006-04-20
00 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie
2006-04-20
00 Ted Hardie Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie
2006-04-20
00 Ted Hardie Created "Approve" ballot
2006-04-20
00 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-04-20
00 (System) Last call text was added
2006-04-20
00 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-04-20
00 Ted Hardie Draft Added by Ted Hardie in state Publication Requested
2006-02-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-kornijenko-ivis-urn-00.txt