Subject: [urn] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 11:18:39 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-08: Discuss

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-ns-reg-transition/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The specification has not been properly vetted against the I-D Checklist.

The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3044 and RFC3187,
but the abstract doesn't mention this, which it should. Listing of obsoleted
documents in the Abstract is specified by the ID-Checklist document (§3, 1.D,
first bullet),

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

Major comment:

Section 3 has suggested changes for RFC3188 for the next time it is revised.
It's not clear, outside of institutional knowledge (which is a very fragile
construct) how the indicated changes are going to be properly remembered when
such revision takes place. Is there a good reason this document doesn't simply
update RFC3188 by indicating an updated template directly? If this doesn't make
sense, I would think that we need at least an erratum associated with RFC3188
that indicates the nature of update that needs to be performed.

Minor comment:

The document has at least nine places where external documents are mentioned
but which are not, themselves, reference citations (e.g., "RFC 8141"  rather
than "[RFC8141]" in section 2). This will interact poorly with some RFC-related
tooling. Please change these to references.