Last Call Review of draft-martin-urn-globus-02
review-martin-urn-globus-02-genart-lc-halpern-2016-02-12-00

Request Review of draft-martin-urn-globus
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-03-09
Requested 2016-02-11
Authors Stuart Martin, Steve Tuecke, Brendan McCollam, Mattias Lidman
Draft last updated 2016-02-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-martin-urn-globus-02-genart-lc-halpern-2016-02-12
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2016-02-12

Review
review-martin-urn-globus-02-genart-lc-halpern-2016-02-12

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

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
    A URN Namespace for Globus
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 11-Feb-2016
IETF LC End Date: 9-March-2016
IESG Telechat date: 17-March-2016



Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an 


informational RFC.






This reviewer assumes that the appropriate message has been or will be 


sent to urn-nid at apps.ietf.org.




Major issues:


    As per the pointer in this document to RFC 3406 section 4.3, this 


document is required to have a Namespace Considerations section which 


"outlines the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing 


namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)."  While there is 


a section called Namespace Considerations, what it lists is the 


envisioned usages, not the reasons existing name spaces are insufficient.




Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments: N/A