AD Review Comments and Questions: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07

["Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your working group chairs have asked me to shepherd
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07 through IETF last call.  As part of that
process, I have an obligation to review the document myself.  I've completed
my review and I'd like to share my comments and a few questions with the
group.

A new version of the document is probably needed before I can submit the
last call request.  I don't think I found any major problems, but I'd prefer
to close known issues before asking the community for input -- especially
since this working group has never met at a face-to-face IETF meeting.

I intend to ask the XML Directorate to review the document during the last
call period.  Anything they find can be dealt with along with any other last
call comments.

Comments/Questions:

The document includes an informative RELAX NG schema and several examples.
What has been done to confirm that the schema is free of errors and that all
of the examples given in the document are valid according to the schema?  (I
could check an XML Schema myself, but I don't have the tools I need to check
RELAX NG.)

Sections 1.1, 1.2: RFC 3688/BCP 81 describes IETF practice for naming XML
namespaces.  Why are namespace URIs (such as http://purl.org) that don't
conform to this practice being used?

Section 1.2: please reference draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00.txt instead
of RFC 2234 and confirm that everything that was valid before is still
valid.  The IESG approved this document as a Draft Standard last week.

Section 2 describes a requirement for well-formedness, but it doesn't
mention validity.  I suspect that validity isn't a requirement given that
the RELAX NG schema is informative, but it would be better if a specific
statement were included to note that validity is not a requirement.

Section 4: RFC 2045 is referenced.  2045 is on its way to being obsoleted by
draft-freed-mime-p4 (in the RFC Editor queue) and draft-freed-media-type-reg
(in last call).  Can the more recent documents be referenced instead of
2045?

The MIME media type registration template included in section 7 MUST be
submitted to the ietf-types list (ietf-types@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) for review.  A
two-week review period is standard for requests to register new types in the
standards tree.  Please see the list archives [1] for samples if help is
needed in crafting a review request and please send the request ASAP.

Section 7.1: what process is the IESG supposed to use to review registration
requests?  Please see section 2 of RFC 2434/BCP 26 for mechanisms that might
be used and please specify one in the document.

-Scott-

[1]
http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/