Hi, Authors: I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document specifies the syntax of the Ad-ID-URN namespace. There is no major issue. I believe this document is ready for publication. Here are a few editorial comments: 1. Section 1, paragraph 2 Data model is overused nowadays. I believe it is not referred to YANG data model. 2. Section 1, paragraph 2 Is adverstiser, product, commercial title included in Ad-ID Identifier or URN-ADID or part of URN Namespace definition? It is not clear to me. How registrant of the namespace is related to advertiser? Where is the metadata defined or described in section 2? If metadata is not part of this document, please make this clear in the text. 3. Section 1, paragraph 2 said: ” Ad-ID Identifiers are unique codes for each advertising asset digitally, and applies that code to all media.” Is that code referred to unique codes for each advertising asset? Suggest to split this sentence into two short sentences, for example Ad-ID Identifiers are unique codes for each advertising asset digitally. Those unique codes are applied to all media. 4. Section 5 Where the syntactic and lexical equivalence is specified? In RFC 3406 or RFC2141? If yes, please make this clear in the text. 5. Section 7.2 Complimentary Definition Codes gives me a lot of confusion. Can you give an example of Complimentary Definition Codes? How Complimentary Definition Codes is related to Ad-ID Identifier? Is Complimentary Definition Codes represented using one character? It looks matching SD, HD and/or 3D codes are examples of CDCs and CDCs can be generated based on existing Ad-ID identifier. -Qin