The IESG wrote:
<draft-goodwin-iso-urn-02.txt> as an Informational RFC
The draft says "Intended status: Standards Track", what's
correct ? RFC 3406 states: "The RFC need not be standards-
track".
Is the fourth paragraph in the introduction from "Every" up
to "withdrawn" supposed to reflect an IETF consensus ? It
talks about "democratic framework", "consensus", and similar
magic words.
The ABNF doesn't pass validation, <comment> can't be folded,
just add ";" in front of folded lines. And there can't be
no <elements> at all in a rule, proposed fix:
-| techelement = ; unspecified
-|
-| isodefined = ; unspecified
+| techelement = <unspecified>
+|
+| isodefined = <unspecified>
It would be interesting to see the URNs for the "normative
references" [ISODIR-1], [ISODIR-2], [ISODIR-S], and
[ISOGUIDE69] in action, together with a corresponding URI.
BTW, ISO Guide 69:1999, 8 pages available as PDF for 56 CHF.
I don't find the normative "directives" immediately.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf