Subject: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn: Sections 3.3.1 -- 3.3.3

From: [email-masked] (Henry S. Thompson)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:45:17 +0000

[I'm very encouraged by the progress on 2141bis overall, and have
recently followed up on some of the editors' feedback points as
included in ...-10.  There are a few more substantial points where I
still think some improvement is both needed and possible---this is the
first of some specific comments/suggestions.]

I find the "The inner syntax of the [pqf]-component is to be
defined..." phrasing awkward and confusing.  Are you specifically
trying to _avoid_ 2119 terminology?  If so, why?  This specification
is clearly in a position to place normative requirements on URN
namespace definitions.  In other words, why _not_ say

  URN namespace definitions which allow the [pqf]-component MAY
  restrict its syntax further [in the case of p- and q-components:
  ... and MUST define its semantics].

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: [email-masked]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:51:50 -0600

On 3/20/15 4:45 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> [I'm very encouraged by the progress on 2141bis overall,

Thanks for the encouraging words and for contributing to the recent 
progress.

> and have

Yes, that's better.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/