On Dec 24, 2024, at 4:30 AM, ENRICO FRANCESCONI<enrico.francesc...@cnr.it>
wrote:
Dear Madison, Eliot and All,
as required, we have fixed all the issues highlighted in your most recent review,
including the address of the jurisdiction-codes register (it will be
"lex-urn.nic.it"). We have worked directly on the XML format, considering that
it's your source for RFC publication; please find it in attachment.
Please let us know if you have any additional remarks,
meanwhile we wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Best regards
Pierluigi and Enrico
From: Madison Church<mchu...@amsl.com>
Sent: 16 December 2024 16:22
To: ENRICO
FRANCESCONI<enrico.francesc...@cnr.it>;pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com<pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com>;caterina.l...@gmail.com
<caterina.l...@gmail.com>
Cc: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org>; RFC
Editor<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;superu...@gmail.com
<superu...@gmail.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9676 <draft-spinosa-urn-lex-24> for your review
Pierluigi and Enrico,
Thank you for your review. If we understand correctly, you are updating your markdown source file
to match the RPC-edited file. You mentioned "can submit the new, and hopefully final,
version" - we are unsure what is meant by "final version". Please note that while
you may use markdown to create the Internet-Draft, the RPC uses XML as the source for RFC
publication. Also, note that you do not need to submit a new version to the Datatracker. To update
your document, please do one of the following:
• share your updated markdown once the updates are complete,
• if you are updating the markdown in a GitHub repo, please point us to the
repo, or
• provide your updates via mail.
We have left some notes below in this thread. Please let us know if any further
clarification is needed or if you have any questions!
On Dec 16, 2024, at 5:58 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
Please do not upload a new version. We are done with drafts at this stage.
Now there is a draft RFC from which further work must proceed. Instead, please
respond directly to the RFC Editor's questions, either in the positive, in the
negative, or with an alternate propose of the form:
Section #:
OLD:
{old text}
NEW:
{new text}
Thanks very much,
Eliot
On 16.12.2024 12:46, ENRICO FRANCESCONI wrote:
Dear Eliot,
thanks for your feedback. Below in-line our remarks. If all is good, we will
upload the next version (25), where all the remaining issues are fixed.
Thanks!
Pierluigi and Enrico
From: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org>
Sent: 12 December 2024 09:38
To: ENRICO FRANCESCONI<enrico.francesc...@cnr.it>;rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com<pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com>;caterina.l...@gmail.com
<caterina.l...@gmail.com>
Cc:superu...@gmail.com <superu...@gmail.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9676 <draft-spinosa-urn-lex-24> for your review
Hi Enrico,
Please see below.
On 10.12.2024 20:19, ENRICO FRANCESCONI wrote:Dear Colleagues,
thanks a lot for your extensive review of the URN:LEX draft and sorry for
our delay.
We have reported in a new draft all your remarks accepting your proposals,
except the ones still in doubts. Please find them, in-line, here below. Once
clarified these last doubts, we can submit the new, and hopefully final,
version.
Thanks for your collaboration!
best
Pierluigi and Enrico
15) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions about the text below.
Original:
2.2. Jurisdiction-code Register
A new jurisdiction-code registry has been created. Each entry
contains the following elements:
a) Should the title read "Jurisdiction-Code Registry" ("Registry" rather than
"Register")?
No, it is actually a database, not the office managing such a database
The RFC Editor will correct me if I am wrong, but registry in this case refers
to a place, like a web site, in which records are stored, not so much the
office.
Actually, in our view, it is both the things: an archive of the jurisdiction
codes and a website in which jurisdiction code records can be queried.
Anyway, let's wait for RFC Editors feedback
[rfced] Eliot is correct - we are not referring to an office, but "refers to a
place, like a web site, in which records are stored."
c) Would it be helpful to include a citation or URL so readers can access the
new jurisdiction-code registry?
-->
We said already that it did not exist yet and we would create it when the rfc
would be approved. The reviewers accepted that…
See also next period at section 2.2 (end of [page 10]): “The table is initially
empty.”
For intents and purposes, we are at that point. There is value in providing
the URL, so my suggestion would be to do that, to get the initial link up and
running, and then issue the RFC. That way, people won't have to go hunting
around for a link on the web. Better to be authoritative now if we can be.
HOWEVER, any link listed should indicate that it might change (assuming it
might change ;-).
We have just asked our colleagues at IIT-CNR (dealing with URN:LEX technical
infrastructure) to provide such URL and related page
about jurisdiction-code register
17) <!-- [rfced] Would including either a URL or a citation with a corresponding
reference entry for "CNR website dedicated to the LEX governance" be
helpful to readers here? If so, please provide the necessary information.
Original:
A new Jurisdictional Registrar will contact CNR or the Designated
Expert(s) according to the established rules of governance (published
in the CNR website dedicated to the LEX governance).
-->
Currently such website is not available. As soon as the draft will be
approved we will contact experts and create the Designated Expert(s) board
Same as above. Even if the link indicates "under construction, contact so-and-so
for more information", that would be better than nothing.
OK
[rfced] Regarding questions 15c and 17, please let us know when the URLs for
the registries are available and we will update the document accordingly.
40) <!-- [rfced] Please review each instance of U+ notation and let us know if
you would like to replace with the character itself.
The <u> element (which can be used to provide the U+ notation) is only
required for cases where the non-ASCII characters are needed for correct
protocol operation.
For more information, please see:
https://authors.ietf.org/en/non-ascii-characters-in-rfcxml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#nonascii
For examples from published RFCs, please see (search for "non-ASCII"):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=v3_feature_usage
Some examples from this document:
Example 1 (from Section 3.4):
Original:
(e.g.,
the Italian term "sanitU+00E0" replaced into "sanita", the French
term "ministU+00E8re" replaced into "ministere"), in case by
transliteration (e.g. "MU+00FCnchen" replaced into "muenchen”).
Perhaps:
For example,
the Italian term "sanità” is replaced by "sanita", the French
term "ministère” is replaced by "ministere”, and
"München” is replaced by “muenchen” (transliteration).
Example 2 (from Section 3.4):
Original:
- unicode = urn:lex:de:stadt.mU+00FCnchen:rundschreiben: ...
Perhaps no changes are needed when the U+ notation appears in a "urn:lex"
string like this.
-->
The problem here is that non-ASCII characters are not accepted in the txt
version (derived from mkd which is our source file)
That is not entirely the case. You CAN have certain non-ASCII characters in
text that doesn't impact the protocol operation. So the RFC Editor's change in
example 1 is acceptable (and they ought to know!).
OK, we have done so.
In updating the document we have followed the indications of the latest draft
regarding non-ASCII characters,
i.e.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rswg-rfc7997bis-03, which,
although not yet approved, brings some non-substantial changes to RFC7997.
Basically, we have operated as follows:
words with the non-ASCII characters are inserted directly into the document,
followed in brackets by the same words with the non-ASCII characters indicated
in the form U+nnnn (a modality already provided for by RFC7997).
Example:
OLD:
...the Italian term sanitU+00E0 replaced...
NEW:
...the Italian term "sanità" (sanitU+00E0) replaced…
[rfced] For clarification, the non-ASCII characters can be included and displayed
correctly in the text output. Please let us know if any further updates are needed.
See<https://authors.ietf.org/non-ascii-characters-in-rfcxml> for more details.
41) <!-- [rfced] Sourcecode
a) We updated <artwork> to <sourcecode type="abnf"> in Section 8. We also
updated the ABNF snippets throughout the document from <artwork> to
<sourcecode type="abnf">. Please review.
b) In Section 2.1, we changed the following from <artwork> to
<sourcecode>. Please confirm that this is correct. If so, should the "type"
attribute be set?
Original:
"urn:lex:" NSS
Note: The current list of preferred values for "type" is available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types. If this list
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it
is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
c) In Section 5.8, we changed the following from <artwork> to
<sourcecode>. We set the type to "abnf", but please confirm this is
correct. We do not see this in Section 8.
Original:
URN-reference = URN-document ["~" partition-id]
...
-->
We couldn't find how to include<sourcecode type="abnf"> in the mkd document, which is our
source file.In this case "sourcecode" is a tag not necessarily pointing to the location of the
source.
We had used ~~~~~ (converted to <artwork> in the xml version) only to highlight
more some parts of the text, and in particular: ABNF formulas, examples, list of
reserved characters.
The solution we have conceived is the following:
- converted ~~~~~ (<artwork> in xml) into ``` (<tt> in xml) in all the ABNF
formula, where actually we deal with codes, highlighted in the text;
- kept ~~~~~ (<artwork> in xml) in all the examples and in the list of the
reserved characters, which are not actual codes but are to be highlighed in the text.
In our opinion, it’s not appropriate to change them as unnumbered lists (<ul>),
because it makes us lose the text highlighting.
[rfced] We are unsure whether the markdown you are using supports sourcecode
types, but it can be set in the XML file.
The XML file is available here:https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676.xml
You can view what has been tagged as <artwork> and <sourcecode> by searching for those terms in the file. We
are asking you to a) review whether the tags have been set correctly or if updates are needed, and b) indicate whether
"type" should be set for any <sourcecode>.
See<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#sourcecode> for more information; information about "type"
is available from the Attributes tab.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc<draft-spinosa-urn-lex-25b.xml>
