A URN Namespace for ucode
RFC 6588

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Yes

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

I agree with the concern about the term "Internet of Things". I don't
think the use of that term is needed to justify this work, and I believe
the I-D would be easier to read and more compelling if the term was left
out. It is good enough to say "ucode exists and is use din many 
applications. This document provides a URN namespace for ucode to 
enable its use in Internet-related devices and software."

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

Instead of creating a new hex-decimal, please use HEXDIG from RFC 5234.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

- Can someone tell me if uidcenter.org is ok as an SDO for a
normative reference or not? I've never heard of 'em but this
may be outside my normal sphere of operation. 

- Even if uidcenter.org is ok, their normaive July 28 2009 document
(with a 2010 copyright?) or white paper or working draft doesn't
seem like a very stable document as a normative reference for an
RFC.

- Even if it were, then it appears that this I-D a) repeats the
text from the [UCODE] ref - if uidcenter.org are a bona-fide SDO
why is an RFC needed that says the same thing?) and b) has no
new substantive technical content, so I'm puzzled by that.

- If "Applications that use ucode take advantage of the Internet
extensively" is true, then what applications are those and why
are there no references to them?

- What is a "small user"?

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

I agree with Stephen's DISCUSS that the language on IoT could be tightened up.  IoT is more of a concept than something concrete, and there are different approaches to IoT, not all of which necessarily involve ucode.