Subject: [urn] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:32:21 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Alissa's comment about the "r-component" section. It seems
to me that defining the syntax without the semantics risks finding out
later the syntax was wrong.

I agree with the general comments that this seems longer than it needs to
be, and that we should remember that excess text has a cognitive cost.
But it seems too late in the process to do much about that. 

The review tracker indicates there has been no GENART or SECDIR reviews.
That's unfortunate, but I guess not a show stopper.