Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-netmod-dsdl-map-07

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I further note that  [e-mail] gets bounced by Nortel as a non-existant address. Is there an updated address?

On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-dsdl-map-07
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 2010-09-07
> IETF LC End Date: 2010-09-07
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> 
> Summary: The draft is basically ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a few editorial comments and nits that should be considered if there is another revision.
> 
> Note: This draft delves deeply into XML esoterica, and I am far from an XML expert. I assume the authors and work group feel this has had sufficient review from XML experts (and as far as I know, they _are_ the experts). I also assume the schemas, etc, have been mechanically verified. If not, I suggest this be done as much as practical.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> -- Idnits complains about a number of normative references to external documents. I don't know if that's a problem--I merely point it out for consideration. It looks like it's mostly ISO docs, so I doubt there's an issue
> 
> -- There are a number of acronyms that should be expanded on first use. E.g. YANG, RELAX NG, XLST, etc.
> 
> -- section 2.1, definition of "implicit node"
> 
> Can a node be considered implicit if it is _not_ missing? If not, then the "if missing" condition is non-contraining.
> 
> -- section 3, 1st sentence:
> 
> s/by/with
> 
> -- section 9.1.1:
> 
> Is it explicitly illegal for a mandatory node to have a default?
> 
> -- section 9.1.1, third paragraph from the end:
> 
> "...and only if..." seems non-constraining in context.
> 
> -- section 13
> 
> This looks sort of light, when compared with the template in 3688. I'm not exactly sure how to apply that to a namespace, since I guess there is no XML to include, but it probably at least needs a registrant contact for each URL.
> 
> -- Author's addresses:
> 
> Is Rohan's affiliation current?