I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02 Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: November 29, 2013 IETF LC End Date: December 6, 2013 IESG Telechat date: December 19, 2013 Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues described in the review. This draft registers a formal URN namespace in accordance with the guidelines in RFC 3406 for the use of the European System of Central Banks in cross-border securities settlement. The draft is clear and concise. Major issues: One - the Community Considerations section of this draft is insufficient. An important concern that this draft should address is whether and why a formal URN namespace is appropriate vs. an informal namespace - see RFC 3406 for more information on URN namespace types. Section 3.3 of RFC 3406 advises: A formal namespace may be requested, and IETF review sought, in cases where the publication of the NID proposal and the underlying namespace will provide benefit to some subset of users on the Internet. That is, a formal NID proposal, if accepted, must be functional on and with the global Internet, not limited to users in communities or networks not connected to the Internet. The rationale for a formal namespace thus depends strongly on the contents of the Community Considerations section of the registration request, about which Section 4 of RFC 3406 has this to say: The RFC must also include a "Community Considerations" section, which indicates the dimensions upon which the proposer expects its community to be able to benefit by publication of this namespace as well as how a general Internet user will be able to use the space if they care to do so. In this proposal, that explanation ("indicates the dimensions ...") consists of two sentences: The Eurosystem TARGET2-Securities messages are exchanged in IP networks. The message-related resources being persistently named need to be referred to in the public Internet. That is a good start, but it is not sufficient, particularly the second sentence quoted above. The draft should explain why the resources for which this namespace is requested need to be referred to in the public Internet and (ideally) how the public in general (e.g., "a general Internet user") may benefit from being able to refer to such resources. An example would be helpful - one possibility is that if this namespace will be used to name publically accessible records or documents, persistent identifiers are clearly useful in unambiguously designating the record or document that is being referred to in another context (e.g., policy discussions, input to governmental or other regulatory bodies). Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: None, idnits 2.13.00 ran clean. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748 +1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black at emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------