Re: [mile] early AD-review of draft-ietf-mile-template

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On 5/9/12 9:59 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
> Hi, Sean,
>
> Many thanks for the review; I've incorporated these points into a working -04 revision. A couple of questions or points, inline...
>
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>> 12) A.8 and A.9 and I guess all appendices in this draft, should we require that they explicitly be marked as normative parts of the document?
>
> A.8 and A.9 are weird, in that they're appendices within an appendix. Examples are definitely informative. The XML schema should be normative; however, technically, I would presume it's the schema that goes into the IANA registry (which, of course, in the normal case, gets taken from the schema in Appendix A of an extension document) which is normative.

So I guess adding a sentence in A.8/A.9 to say something like "When the 
draft is produced this Appendix should be marked as normative" and "When 
the draft is produced this Appendix should be marked as informative" 
would work for me.

>> 13) Appendix B: Should we make up something to register as opposed to using something real? Maybe something like lottery #?
>
> It would reduce potential confusion; we've already had appsarea feedback on this example. I did spend a little time trying to come up with an enumeration extension that was clearly ridiculous but still realistic enough to be properly illustrative; this is as close as I got. Not sure where we'd wedge a lottery number into one of the enumerations. I'm inclined to leave this as it is for now...

I'm fine with that.  I'm sure there's somebody out there that'll have an 
opinion on this - and then we can ask them for an example ;)

spt