Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
Hi, A few further comments on this I-D. In general, a quick inspection of RFC4181 is advisable (especially section 3) as this I-D does not appear to be compliant in several cases. === The Abstract contains a citation. This should be avoided as the Abstract should be able to stand alone. Better to include the RFC number and full name. === The Introduction seems rather skimpy. This would be a good place to present an overview of the content of the MIB module and, in particular, a discussion of the text in the Description clauses with some guidance on how to choose between the three TCs that are defined. Answers to the points raised by other reviewers might also go in this section. === The comments in the Imports clause helpfully indicate the RFCs from which the imports come, but the referenced RFCs should not appear in square brackets, they are not citations since the MIB model may be extracted from the document and stand alone. === All three Description clauses contain ...MUST be a normalized as defined... This should read ...MUST be normalized as defined... === All three Reference clauses are a bit lazy. It is normal to include the full reference details (as extracted from section 7) since the MIB module may be extracted from the document and stand alone. === The Description clauses for Uri255 and Uri1024 contain ...impose an arbitrary length limit... Is the length limit here really arbitrary? An arbitrary length limit could, in fact, be applied with the Uri TC. In fact it seems that the imposition of the length limit will be far from arbitrary, but will be designed so that the upper bound of the length of an object with Syntax Uri255 or Uri1024 is well known. Maybe just strike the word arbitrary? Maybe give some additional explanation of why a length limit might be applied (see my request for guidance on the choice between the TCs to be included in the Introduction). === The reference to RFC3986 includes ..., Was Internet-Draft It is unusual to include reference to the I-D that has subsequently become an RFC. Probably best just to leave this text out. Ditto RFC3305, RFC3414, and RFC3415. === RFC3305 is included in the references but no reference is made to it. Either delete it or include a reference. But I suspect a reference is needed so that its use in Reference clauses can be matched. That usage would tend to make this a Normative reference, which is a small problem for an Informational RFC. === Adrian - Original Message - From: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IETF-Announce ietf-announce@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:02 PM Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB ' draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_iddTag=15468rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
On 2/23/07, Adrian Farrel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reference to RFC3986 includes ..., Was Internet-Draft It is unusual to include reference to the I-D that has subsequently become an RFC. Probably best just to leave this text out. Ditto RFC3305, RFC3414, and RFC3415. Sorry, this one is my fault - I generate a set of include files for xml2rfc that has nearly all of the info that I know about a document, which I built to try to help me notice (if I ever read the references section of my own documents) when I've accidentally referred to an I-D that's been published or obsoleted, etc etc. David used them (I'm actually a bit curious how, I do make them available for rsync but I didn't think I had told anyone about that) and so got the extra info. He's taken kind of a beating for it so I feel particularly bad. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect this document to at the very least reference those security considerations more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular to URIs used within SNMP. It's not clear whether it makes sense for SNMP URIs to contain, for example, 'data:' URIs or 'urn:' or any of a number of schemes, and I would expect some discussion about the applicability of URIs within a SNMP context. URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and not implicit. In practice, many systems allow and produce IRIs (RFC 3987) and not URIs, to allow for accents and non-roman scripts. I wonder if it would be more appropriate to define the MIB value as an IRI encoded in UTF-8, for example. Larry -Original Message- From: The IESG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:02 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB ' draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie w_iddTag=15468rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
The title of this document is very confusing and should be revised to include the string textual convention. Seeing this last call announcement I was very puzzled why anyone thought it would be a good idea to hae a MIB for monitoring and managing all the URIs on a managed system. I was gratified to find that this is not what the document was about. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
Sam Hartman wrote: The title of this document is very confusing and should be revised to include the string textual convention. Seeing this last call announcement I was very puzzled why anyone thought it would be a good idea to hae a MIB for monitoring and managing all the URIs on a managed system. I was gratified to find that this is not what the document was about. I strongly agree with the above comments. For the title I would recommend: Textual Conventions for Representing Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) In the same vein, I would recommend URI-TC-MIB for the module name and uriTcMIB for the descriptor representing the MODULE-IDENTITY value. Note that these recommendations are consistent with the (non-binding) advice in Appendix C of RFC 4181 (the MIB review guidelines). //cmh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB ' draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_iddTag=15468rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
