Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-04.txt

["Natale, Bob" <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

Thanks...will implement your recommended changes 1-9 per your guidance (and earlier feedback from others).

I don't really know the answer to 10...will watch for additional comments from this group and will research what has been done for some other XSDs in IETF RFCs...and adopt what results from that or leave it as is if nothing emerges clearly.

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: David B Harrington [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 5:17 PM
To: [e-mail]; Natale, Bob
Subject: WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-04.txt

Hi,

I have reviewed the -04- revision and believe it is in good shape,
with the following recommended changes.
I think it should be published as a standards track RFC.

Recommended changes:

1) Abstract
s/(when approved as a standards-track RFC)//

2) Introduction
 
I recommend dropping the part about three documents unless you
actually publish initial versions of the other documents. I do
recommend against creating a tarball of the three documents, which
would hold up all three until all are complete. So dropping the text
makes the most sense to me.

On the other hand, this document alone is insufficient. Users of this
document may also need the other two documents, depending on their
purpose. You could say that the other two documents may be needed for
complete reuse of existing MIB modules in an XML environment, but
those documents have not been written at the time of this writing.

3) section 4

The paragraph about "BITS" needs to be modified:
s/will be defined/????/

4) IANA Considerations

The document registers namespaces and schemas for three documents.
This should be changed to only register one set.

5) Acknowledgements

check the spelling of Alfred HInes.

you or the RFC editor should remove the note to notify the editor.

6) References

I think RFC3584 might be Normative, and 2579 Informational.

7) Open Issues

remove this section

8) Change Log

you or the RFC editor should remove the change log

9) copyrights need to be 2009, and must meet the new IPR rules.

10) Since this schema might be used separately from the enclosing
document, should it contain information, similar to the description in
a MIB module, such as organization, contact person, address, phone,
email, last updated, the RFC in which it was published, etc.?

David Harrington
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]