Subject: draft-kindberg-tag-uri

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 09:05:41 -0400

The IESG has discussed the draft draft-kindberg-tag-uri and have no real
concerns regarding content (as it has been discussed on these lists
earlier).

But, the following clearifications are needed:

(1) The BNF in the draft need to be ABNF and not BNF.

(2) One paragraph reads:

   In the interests of tags being single-valued, a day value of 01 MUST
   be omitted; a month value of 01 MUST be omitted unless it is followed
   by a day value other than 01. For example, the date fields '2003-01'
   and '2001-07-01' are not allowed but '2001-01-07' is allowed.

Why is not this resolved by claiming that the tag with day value 2003-01 be
equal 2003-01-01?

(3) Similar to (2) one paragraph reads:

   The component 'tagAuthority' is the name space part of the URI. In
   the interests of tags being single-valued, this MUST be expressed in
   lower case; the domain name in 'authorityName' (whether an email
   address or a simple domain name) MUST be fully qualified.

(4) Comparison (2) and (3) above might be resolved if this is resolved.

In 1.1, you say:

   Section 2 gives a specification for tags: their syntax and the rules
   governing their creation and comparison.

In 2.1, you say:

   Therefore, two tag URIs are equal if and only if they are identical
   as character strings.

Please make a clearification on what is meant by "identical as character
strings". I.e. specify what comparison function you use.

(5) Security considerations section should be the last section before the
Acknowledgement and Authors Addresses and cover everything above it. You
should write something about implications of blindly using the authority
name as a domain name, because ownership of domain names might change. I.e.
how important it is to respect the date.

(6) Appendices should be after the references and authors addresses. You
should look over the overall structure of the document and see that the
order of "standard paragraphs" are as recommended.

To conclude: Timothy, Sandro, please make a new version of the draft and
let me know when it is available in the Internet-Draft repository.

   Regards, Patrik Faltstrom
   Area Director, Applications Area, for the IESG