Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Tom.  Except for the few questions below, all of your comments
(in both messages) make sense to me and seem non-controversial, so I
will act on them as part of closing the WG last call, before IESG
submission.
Items I have questions about, or think should be highlighted to the
working group:

tom.petch wrote:
> Some miscellaneous editorial suggestions
...
> 4 Each of the library documents will conform to the schema presented ...
> /will/MUST/ ??
It is really hard to mandate what happens in another RFC.  Even if we
said MUST, they could do something different.  On the other hand "will"
is odd language, so MUST is probably better.

..
> 7 why isn't there a State declaration in response to a State query?
Because this whole section is idiosyncratic to match other documents.
(I wouldn't even have it if it weren't mandated by earlier group
decisions in the framework / requirements work.)

...
> 9 assignment by IETF RFCs.
> I see this terminology as deprecated in favour of a more explicit Standards
> Track RFC or just RFC; RFC can be IETF or Individual Submission, either can be
> Standards Track or not.  I think that this should be Standards Track, whether it
> comes from an IETF WG or as an Individual Submission, eg from a vendor.
I can live with standards track.  Given that there is a first-come,
first-served section, standards track is probably quite reasonable for
the controlled section.
As a minor note, there is no such thing as an Individual Submission for
standards track.

...
> 9 I observe the lack of a request to IANA to allocate the XML namespace:-)
I am not sure what needs to be said to "allocate" the namespace beyond
the statement to the IANA about what namespace we are using.  If there
is another sentence I can / should add, let me know.