Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous - IANA
"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Thu, 14 February 2008 14:45 UTC
Message-Id: <THU.14.FEB.2008.154546.0100.>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:45:46 +0100
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous - IANA
Comments: To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joel Picking up just the point about IANA, I suggest, plagiarising shamelessly from other I-Ds, 9.1. URN Namespace Registration IANA is requested to register a new XML namespace, as per the guidelines in RFC 3688 [RFC3688]. URI: The URI for this namespace is urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0 Registrant Contact: IESG {or else could be ForCES working group} XML: none, this is an XML namespace 9.2 LFB Class Names and LFB Class Identifiers IANA is requested to created a register of ForCES LFB Class Names and LFB Class Identifiers. .... with the existing s.9 slightly modified to follow on from the above and adding [RFC3688] as a normative reference. I always like to give IANA a clear simple request to act; they may be ForCES experts, they may never have heard of it, the simpler the request is, the more likely it is to be followed accurately. Thus I specify 'ForCES LFB Class Names' just in case there is another LFB (Linked Forward Bidirectionality ?) that we have never heard of. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:50 PM Subject: Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous > 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. >
- Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous - IANA Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous - IANA tom.petch