Good morning/evening, Thank you very much for the review and comments. A revision of draft-pal-eidr-urn-01 intended to address them is available at [1].
[1] http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pal-eidr-urn-02.txt In particular, > Would it be possible to create a dummy working > EIDR that could be used in the RFC? The EIDR organization wishes to avoid creating a dummy entry that may show up in searches and/or require special handling, etc... Instead, in order to avoid any appearance of favoritism, the EIDR for a very early work ("The Great Train Robbery") is now used as an example throughout the document. > Of course it may be that new prefixes are not likely > to be needed too often and anyway would need a new suffix > format, in which case this is irrelevant. New prefixes will not need to be regularly defined. Let me know if you need additional information. Best, -- Pierre On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Elwyn Davies <elw...@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-pal-eidr-urn-01.txt > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 25 April 2014 > IETF LC End Date: 16 May 2014 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) - > > Summary: Ready with very minor nits. > > Query/Suggestion: I don't know if creating IANA registries for > EIDR-PREFIXes and corresponding EIDR-SUFFIX types has been considered. > If additional prefixes are likely to have the same suffix format (i.e., > just fulfilling a need for more space), then considerable future effort > could be avoided by using expert review by someone from EIRA or SMPTE to > add new prefixes. Of course it may be that new prefixes are not likely > to be needed too often and anyway would need a new suffix format, in > which case this is irrelevant. Just a thought! > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > Header: Shouuld spcify the intended status (which is Informational > according to the tracker). > > Abstact: s/global/globally/ > > s1, para 2: s/time of registration/the time of registration/ > > s2 title and para 1: It would be more appropriate to title this section > 'Completed URN Namespace Definition Template' > and make para 1 something like: > The namespece definition according to the template in [RFC3406] is as > follows: > > s2, example: > The example http://doi.org/10.5240/68DD-341E-03EE-4BB8-1761-Q is a > working EIDR DOI for the movie "Superman Returns". Whilst this > illustrates the namespace very well, it is normally good to use a dummy > example to avoid any downstream issues (I don't see that the owners of > the film would complain, but other might look on it as favouritism). > Would it be possible to create a dummy working EIDR that could be used > in the RFC? > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
