A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) Specification 1000D
RFC 4688

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-11)
No email
send info
s/decribed/described/

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-11)
No email
send info
ABNF reference is to RFC 2234, not RFC 4234 (also affects a comment in the syntax description).

   (from Gen-ART review by Tom Taylor)

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-11)
No email
send info
Can the "declared registrant" be a role rather that a person? (Such as "ASD TPSMG Chairperson" in this case.)

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-09)
No email
send info
Might want to explain what "ASD Specification 1000D" is in the abstract.

Worlds most trivial of nit but I'm one of the phone number standards guys, and, well, I think the phone number in the author's address is wrong. It should be +1 not +01. I'm almost embarrassed to bother mentioning this - I really don't think this will harm the internet if not fixed :-)

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-05-10)
No email
send info
I do not know if we really care, but there seems to be a consistent vagueness in the document when refering to the S1000D specification. Reference [5] should be I believe more exactly defined not as 

OLD: 

"ASD Specification 1000D", May 2005

but

NEW:

"ASD Specification 1000D, Issue 2.2", May 2005

However, the text does not refer to [5] at all (and not to any of the Normative references as a fact) but rather includes statements like: 'A suggested method of resolution is outlined in ASD S1000D.', 'Identifiers must conform to ASD S1000D', etc. which may be interpreted as refering to a more 'atemporal' version of S1000D, and not to the May 2005 version in the Normative References. 

At first sight this does not seem right.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

Comment (2006-05-09)
No email
send info
- The formal syntax language should be referenced.
- "subnamespace" seems to potentially be extensible. The text hints at that. However the syntax does not allow for such extensions.