RE: [Entmib] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

At 07:54 AM 2/2/2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Andy writes:
>> 
>> At 07:05 AM 2/2/2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>> >Can the author/editor and/or the WG react please.
>> >I need (if possible) an answer by tomorrow (Thursday) 11am US
>> >eastern at the latest (that is, if we want to try and get this 
>> >approved this week).
>> 
>> what are the edits? CLEI URI to CLEI URN. reference
>> RFC 2396 -> RFC 3986.  Any other nits?  Can't you just carry 
>> forward an edit list without an update?
>> 
>
>I can do that if the WG agrees that that is indeed what we want to do.
>I cannot just make such changes without checking back with at least
>the authors/editors or the WG.
>
>> It's not like these updates require anybody to comment.
>> Who's going to object to fixing a nit?
>> 
>I can do those fixes with an RFC-Editor note if we agree that
>is what we want to do.

I am 100% in favor of fixing typos and out-of-date references.
I don't think you need to wait for the WG to comment on 
non-controversial edits.  Any WG members out there in favor of 
keeping typos and out-of-date references, please speak up now!


>Bert
>> 
>> >Bert
>> 
>> Andy

Andy


>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail] 
>> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf
>> >> Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 01:05
>> >> To: Entmib-wg (E-mail)
>> >> Subject: [Entmib] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Feedback from IESG
>> >> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of
>> >> Ted Hardie
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 23:28
>> >> To: [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Minor, but should be fixed.  The document currently says:
>> >> 
>> >> entPhysicalUris OBJECT-TYPE
>> >>      SYNTAX      OCTET STRING
>> >>      MAX-ACCESS  read-write
>> >>      STATUS      current
>> >>      DESCRIPTION
>> >>              "This object contains additional identification 
>> >> information
>> >>              about the physical entity. The object 
>> contains URIs and
>> >>              therefore the syntax of this object must 
>> conform to RFC
>> >>              2396, section 2.
>> >> 
>> >>              Multiple URIs may be present and are 
>> separated by white
>> >>              space characters. Leading and trailing white space
>> >>              characters are ignored.
>> >> 
>> >>              If no additional identification information 
>> is known or
>> >>              supported about the physical entity the object is not
>> >>              instantiated.  A zero length octet string may also be
>> >>              returned in this case."
>> >>      REFERENCE
>> >>              "RFC 2396, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
>> >>              Syntax, section 2, August 1998."
>> >> 
>> >> This should be updated to the new URI RFC and a pointer to the
>> >> appropriate syntax restrictions.  This text also does not limit
>> >> the types of URIs which may be present.  If they are limited,
>> >> an enumerated list should be included.
>> >> 
>> >> The document also uses "CLEI URI" to refer to a URN in the CLEI
>> >> namespace.  That's technically correct, but it would be easier
>> >> to understand if CLEI URN was used.  Here's an example:
>> >> 
>> >>      The entPhysicalUris object may be used to encode for 
>> >> example a URI
>> >>      containing a Common Language Equipment Identifier 
>> (CLEI) URI for
>> >>      the managed physical entity. The URN name space for CLEIs is
>> >>      defined in [RFC CLEIURN], and the CLEI format is defined in
>> >>      [T1.213][T1.213a]. 
>> >> 
>> >> Simply swapping out (CLEI) URI for (CLEI) URN would be fine.
>> >> 
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Entmib mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>> >> 
>> 

_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib