Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-goodwin-iso-urn (A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)) to Informational RFC

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 20:49:21 +0100

The IESG wrote:

>    <draft-goodwin-iso-urn-02.txt> as an Informational RFC

The draft says "Intended status: Standards Track", what's 
correct ?  RFC 3406 states:  "The RFC need not be standards-
track".  

Is the fourth paragraph in the introduction from "Every" up
to "withdrawn" supposed to reflect an IETF consensus ?  It
talks about "democratic framework", "consensus", and similar
magic words.

The ABNF doesn't pass validation, <comment> can't be folded,
just add ";" in front of folded lines.  And there can't be
no <elements> at all in a rule, proposed fix:

-| techelement   = ; unspecified
-|
-| isodefined    = ; unspecified

+| techelement   = <unspecified>
+|
+| isodefined    = <unspecified>

It would be interesting to see the URNs for the "normative
references" [ISODIR-1], [ISODIR-2], [ISODIR-S], and
[ISOGUIDE69] in action, together with a corresponding URI.

BTW, ISO Guide 69:1999, 8 pages available as PDF for 56 CHF.
I don't find the normative "directives" immediately.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf