I reviewed this document as part of the IoT Directorate's effort to IoT-related IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. Document: draft-ietf-core-dev-urn-09 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2021-01-06 IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-02 IESG Telechat date: 2021-01-21 A review from the IoT Directorate was requested on 2021-01-05, which is after the IETF Last Call ended. I assume that the Internet ADs want this review to help inform them during IESG Evaluation. Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: Section 3.2 says: The optional underscore-separated components following the hexstring are strings depicting individual aspects of a device. Not all of the DEV URN forms contain a hexstring; however, all of them are allowed to end with underscore-separated components. I suggest: The optional underscore-separated components at the end of the DEV URN depict individual aspects of a device. Section 3.2.1 says: ... and a MAC address could be represented either with uppercase or lowercase hexadecimal digits. This is not allowed by the ABNF: hexstring = 1*(hexdigit hexdigit) hexdigit = DIGIT / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f" If both cases are to be supported, the upper case letters need to be added to the ABNF to permit them. Section 4.2 says: ... 64-bit identifier that consists of 8 byte family code, 48 bit identifier unique within a family, and 8 bit CRC code [OW]. The math does not work. I suspect: s/8 byte/8 bit/ Section 6 says: ... An implementation of the DEV URN MUST NOT change these properties from what they were intended. It is not clear to me the meaning of "they" in this sentence. Please clarify. Minor Concerns: Section 3.2 says: DEV URNs do not use r-, q-, or f-components. I would have liked a bit more context here. I suggest: DEV URNs do not use r-, q-, or f-components as defined in [RFC8141]. Section 3.2.1 refers to "BASE64". Please add an informative reference to RFC 4648 to be clear. Section 4.1 uses the term "Ethernet" in two places. I think both of them should be replaced by "MAC-48". Nits: Section 3.2 says: However, due to the SenML RFC 8428 Section 4.5.1 rules, DEV URNs do not support percent-encoding. This does not seem like a "however" statement to me. Perhaps, it is a "Note that" statement. Or, just drop "However". Section 4.1: s/rests within the IEEE/ /rests with the IEEE Registration Authority/ Section 7 includes: "publicly available specification that can be pointed to." It is sufficient to say: ""publicly available specification."