Hi Barry,
This looks reasonable, thanks for the timely response and for addressing my
comments. I suggest that the editor also fixes the text in section 7.
Regards,
Dan
-Original Message-
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:53 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-murdock-nato-nid@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt
Thanks for the review, Dan.
1. The document does not expand the acronym NATO at the first
occurrence. Moreover, in section 7 it mentions 'that a standards body,
like NATO' which is misleading - as NATO is not a standards body. I
suggest to use the full name in the title and abstract, expand the
acronym at first occurrence and correct the text in Section 7.
The AD/shepherd agrees.
2. The abstract and introduction should make clear that this is a
request made according to RFC 3406 for a formal URN space type, as
described in Section 4.3 of RFC 3406.
I suppose that I agree with that, too, though I think it's less important.
But
something like this should do nicely:
OLD
This document describes a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace for
assignment by NATO. The current primary use is for uniquely
identifying Extensible Markup Language (XML) artifacts that provide
information about NATO message text formats and service
specifications as described in various NATO standards [4],
instructions and publications.
NEW
This document allocates a formal Uniform Resource Name (URN)
namespace for assignment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), as specified in RFC 3406. The current primary use is for
uniquely identifying Extensible Markup Language (XML) artifacts
that provide information about NATO message text formats and
service specifications as described in various NATO standards,
instructions and publications.
END
(That also removes the reference ([4]) in the abstract, as the RFC Editor
doesn't allow references in abstracts.) And then a similar change in the
Introduction section.
I could not find in the summary written by the AD shepherd an
indication whether this review occurred.
The AD/shepherd apologises profusely for his typo: the writeup said uri-
review, where it should have said urn-nid. I've corrected the error in the
writeup, and, yes, the review happened.
Ira, I'm going to move the document into IESG Evaluation state now.
Please update the I-D as soon as you can with the above minor changes.
Thanks.
Barry
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
