Last Call Review of draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-18
review-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-18-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-01-20-00

Request Review of draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-12-23
Requested 2013-11-25
Draft last updated 2014-01-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Review review-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-18-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-01-20
Reviewed rev. 18 (document currently at 20)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-01-20

Review
review-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-18-genart-lc-melnikov-2014-01-20

On 17/09/2013 17:15, Andrew Allen wrote:



Alexy

Thank you for the review.

My responses below prepended with [AA]

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Melnikov [

mailto:alexey.melnikov

 at isode.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 6:56 AM
To: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn.all at tools.ietf.org
Cc: <gen-art at ietf.org> Team
Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16

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-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov	
Review Date: 2013-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-16

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational document (with nits).

Major issues:

-- None

Minor issues:

In 3.1:

Rules for Lexical Equivalence:
        Two GSMA IMEI URNs are equivalent if they have the same "imeival"
        value, and the same gsma-specifier-params values in the same
        sequential order, with the exception that the gsma-specifier-param
        "vers=0" is to be ignored for the purposes of comparison.  All of
        these comparisons are to be case-insensitive.

        Any identifier in GSMA namespaces can be compared using the normal
        mechanisms for percent-encoded UTF-8 strings.

UTF-8 reference (RFC 3629) is missing here.

[AA] Will add the RFC 3629 reference



In -19 I see:

3.  Namespace Registration Template

   Rules for Lexical Equivalence:

      Any identifier in 'gsma' NSS can be compared using the normal
      mechanisms for percent-encoded UTF-8 strings (see RFC 3629 [10]) .



The reference should be [8], not [10]. This just demonstrates why 


numeric references are a bad idea ;-).



A minor point:

10.2.  Informative references

     [8]   Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
           Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

This reference is Normative, because it is required to be understood in order to interpret ABNF syntax.

[AA] As indicated in an earlier response I will make this normative