Re: Model draft

["tom.petch" <[e-mail]>]

I think that the URIs are not quite right yet.

As per RFC3688, the targetNamespace should be a urn, eg

 targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"

and the schema needs a name if it is to be registered with IANA, eg

"urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:forces:xxx:1.0"

Have a look at RFC4741 for an example, section 10 and Appendix B (I also like
the way it puts schema in appendices, but I might not win that argument:-(

Prior to RFCiorisation, section 10 of that document looked like

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  NETCONF XML Namespace

   This document requests that IANA register a URI for the NETCONF XML
   namespace in the IETF XML registry [7].

   Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration is
   requested.

   URI: Please assign the URI "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
   for use by the NETCONF protocol.

   Registrant Contact: The IESG.

   XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

10.2.  NETCONF XML Schema

   This document requests that IANA register a URI for the NETCONF XML
   schema in the IETF XML registry [7].

   Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration is

   requested.

   URI: Please assign the URI "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:netconf" for
   use by the NETCONF protocol.

   Registrant Contact: The IESG.

   XML: Appendix B of this document.

10.3.  NETCONF Capability URNs

   This document requests that IANA create a registry for allocating
   NETCONF capability identifiers.  Additions to the registry require
   IETF Standards Action.

   The initial content of the registry will be the capability URNs
   defined in Section 8.

   Following the guidelines in RFC 3553 [6], IANA is requested to assign
   a NETCONF sub-namespace as follows:

   Registry name: netconf

   Specification: Section 8 of this document.

   Repository: The following table.

<snip>

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: Model draft


> A revision of the model draft has been submitted to the repository,
> and has been accepted by it.
> Draft -08 repairs the confusion of XML terminology with ForCES
> components, and cleans up a number of other minor terminology items I
> found while doing that.
>
> Further review is likely needed.  Please read and comment.
>
> I have not changed the FE Status information, as I could not
> determine if there was a working group consensus for change, or what
> it would become if I was to change it.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern