Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-10

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:32:10 -0700

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this
draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area
/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-10
Title: Using the International Mobile station Equipment Identity(IMEI)URN
as an Instance ID
Reviewer: Tim Bray
Review Date: August 13

Summary: The document needs a certain amount of editorial polishing, and
the issues raised on the IETF mailing list need to be considered by the
IESG. That aside, the description of the usage of the IMEI URN seems OK.

Major Issues: The discussion on the ietf@ mailing list is included here by
reference.

Minor Issues: In section 3, The quality of the English is sufficiently bad
as to make the section hard to read and understand.  It is severely in need
of more commas and paragraph breaks.

Nits:

Abstract:

“an RFC (from the IETF stream)” is a little ambiguous, there are multiple
IETF streams

The acronym “UA” is never defined. User-Agent?

Section 1.

s/sub namespace/sub-namespace/

“URN as per RFC 2141” standardize RFC cite syntax

“so that registrar can recognize that the contacts”
- what registrar? Not defined. Oh wait... is the ref to RFC 5626 enough?
- s/registrar/the registrar/

“RFC 5626 [1] defines that a UA SHOULD” - s/defines/specifies/ or /requires/

“other URN schemes to be used” s/to be used//

“outbound behavior and” - comma before “and”

“The GSMA IMEI URN is a namespace for the IMEI a globally unique
identifier” - there’s something broken in this sentence.  Do you mean this
is a URN namespace?  URNs normally aren’t namespaces in and of themselves,
so some more explanation is required.

Section 5.

“other than equal to 0” - s/equal to//

“The UAC MUST provide lexically equivalent URNs in each registration” - the
term “lexically equivalent” is probably underspecified; see Section 6 of
RFC3986. If you mean “character-by-character identical” you should probably
say so (and I suspect you do).

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:08:42 -0600

On 8/13/13 7:32 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> “The UAC MUST provide lexically equivalent URNs in each registration” -
> the term “lexically equivalent” is probably underspecified; see Section
> 6 of RFC3986. If you mean “character-by-character identical” you should
> probably say so (and I suspect you do).

Well, to be fair, RFC 2141 and RFC 3406, which predate RFC 3986, use the
term "lexically equivalent", so I can understand the confusion. However,
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-06 (submitted 12 days ago) removes the
term "lexically" to align the URNBIS work with RFC 3986, and the next
version of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg will do the same.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/