Draft: draft-rushing-s1000d-urn-00.txt Reviewer: Tom Taylor Review Date: 5 May 2006 IETF LC Date: open IESG Telechat Date: 11 May 2006 Summary: This draft meets most of the requirements for registration of a formal URN as described in RFC 3406. I believe it is deficient in one area, technically deficient in another, and I am unclear on the requirement in a third. In addition, the ABNF reference should now be updated from RFC 2234 to RFC 4234 (also affects a comment in the syntax description). Deficiencies and potential deficiencies: 1. RFC 3406 requires that the Namespace Considerations section demonstrate due diligence by indicating why an existing URN namespace would not serve the intended purpose. I expect a fairly straightforward statement would do here. 2. As a second point, I will note that the Community Considerations section is supposed to indicate how the community will benefit from assignment of the URN namespace. Technically the document does not met this requirement, but the required information is present in section 1. 3. Section 4 of RFC 3406 mentions the possible description of a change process for registrations in the IANA Considerations section. The body of the draft suggests that the set of subnamespaces may be extensible. I suspect a change at that level does not trigger a requirement for reregistration, but this should be confirmed. In any event, it might not hurt to state explicitly how extension occurs (presumably by amendment of S1000D).