Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-05.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the quick answer. See a few clarification answers back below.


Please do not issue a revised I-D by now. I believe that this version is
mature enough for last call. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natale, Bob [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:15 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: AD Review of 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-05.txt
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for the comments and for moving the IETF process forward.
> 
> Concerning your comments:
> 
> T1: Yes, that is the intent of the R2: An SMIv1 MIB module 
> must be converted to SMIv2 (insofar as datatypes are 
> concerned) in accordance with RFC 3584 *prior to mapping to 
> XSD as specified in this I-D* (or eventual RFC).  Perhaps I 
> should make that last part explicit in the wording of R2...?

Yes. 

> 
> E1: I examined the idnits warning carefully at the time and 
> decided that the answer to its question "Should you add the 
> disclaimer?" was no, because it did not seem necessary per 
> the terms of the warning.  Do you feel that was the wrong conclusion?

It's OK - I just wanted to make sure you are aware about the warning. 

> 
> E2: Reading RFC 5377 gives me a headache, literally, and 
> quickly.  By time I got through the end of its Sec. 4.3, it 
> seemed to me that it was saying that the IETF Trustees 
> "should define" some kind of text to include for XSDs and 
> such.  So, I then reviewed the text of 
> http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf 
> (much bigger headache now) and it seems to me that it says 
> that the BSD license grant for the XSD "code" is implicitly 
> granted by virtue of the "Copyright Notice" in the I-D (RFC) 
> -- and that authors would have to do something concrete 
> (insert other text) to explicitly apply some other license 
> grant (or usage restrictions).  Do you read that policy differently?
> 

 The RFC will need to include the full text of the full BSD license but
exact location and the text to become part of the code is still being
discussed. I suggest no edits by now as the exact text is not yet
approved by the Trustees.


> E8: I don't find the phrase "no comments included" in the 
> I-D, so I'm not sure how to respond to this exactly.  
> However, perhaps you are misreading (which would be my fault) 
> the purpose of the requirements listed in Sec. 3:  They are 
> requirements applied to the selection of XSD datatypes in 
> this document only.  The output produced (in either 
> direction) is intended for consumption at the 
> machine-to-machine level.  When brought up to the level of 
> human users via management applications, the application may 
> do whatever it deems best in terms of XML (or other) output.  
> The XSDMI "standard" will have done its job at a lower 
> layer...i.e., ensuring that the raw SNMP data (or the SMIv2 
> datatype for pure data modeling applications) was represented 
> correctly at the protocol level.  Even at the "raw data" 
> level, an XML document produced and validated against this 
> XSD could definitely include whatever comments the 
> application creating the document deemed useful.  Only the 
> datatypes and corresponding data values are addressed by this 
> I-D (RFC).

'no comments included' are my words for what I was reading in R7. I
understand now and accept your intention.