Last Call Review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00

Request Review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-04-23
Authors Juna Hakala
Draft last updated 2018-05-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -00 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -00 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00-genart-lc-sparks-2018-05-01
Reviewed rev. 00 (document currently at 02)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2018-05-01


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-05-01
IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-21
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Almost ready for publication as an Information RFC but with issues
that need to be addressed before publication.

Why is there no shepherd's writeup? It would be good to explicitly let the
community know why this is proceeding as an individual draft.  


The document uses 2119 in some inappropriate ways. It's fine to use 2119 terms
when defining how to construct NBN URNs. It's not ok to use them in places like
"the national library MUST", and "A national library ...  SHOULD specify ... a
policy" and "libraries MUST agree". Please find a way to say that if a national
library wants things to work, they will or should do these things.

While I agree with the values expressed, it seems odd for the URN registration
to try to put constraints on fees that a national library might collect 
(especially using a 2119 SHOULD).

Nits/editorial comments: 

The section calling out this draft replaces 
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn should be removed (its enough to add
RFC editor instructions to the draft or to the ballot writeup).

"identifiers identifiers" occurs in the second paragraph on page 4.

The ABNF in "Declaration of syntactic structure of NSS part" needs to be
reformatted to meet the RFC constraints on line length.

Consider "physical" instead of "hand-held" in the first paragraph of 3.1.
A national library may choose to assign an NBN to something too large to pick