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

Hi Bert,

Thanks for your comments and assessment.

- The misspellings of "opaque" (with a "g") have been corrected.

- The use of "datatypes" in the file name and title was, in fact, intended to refer to "SMI datatypes" as implied by the general usage in RFC 2578, Sec. 7.1, "Mapping of the Syntax Clause", to wit:

"The SYNTAX clause, which must be present, defines the abstract data structure corresponding to that object.  The data structure must be one of the following: a base type, the BITS construct, or a textual convention.  (SEQUENCE OF and SEQUENCE are also possible for conceptual tables, see section 7.1.12).  The base types are those defined in the ObjectSyntax CHOICE.  A textual convention is a newly-defined type defined as a sub-type of a base type [3]."

So, "datatypes" is used a bit loosely for "base types"...would you prefer that the latter term be used?  (The document text currently makes it clear that it deals only with expressing the base types of RFC 2578 in XSD.)

- Yes, the text that Juergen questioned is being removed (also had helpful guidance from David Harrington on this point), so that this "base types" document stands alone.

Please confirm or clarify the second point...I will have the -05 version, reflecting final mods based on this last call round, ready immediately after expiration of the last call period (12-Feb-09).

Cheers,
BobN

From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF)
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:57 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] start WGLC ondraft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-04.txt

My comments:

- page 7, section 4
  - speaks about opague. I think you mean opaque (with a Q)

  You may also want to make an explicit statement that those are the datatype
  names as ytou specify them in XSD. I first though they were the datatypes
  as specified in SMIv2.

- Opague (with a G) is again used in the 1st para of sect 5.3 and
   in the first bullet on page 12 and also 3rd bullet.

I share/support Juergen Shoenwaelder's comment w.r.t. the discussion about 3 documents
in a document set. Where, how is that otehr work scheduled/planned?

Other than that, this document seems fine.

Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott O. Bradner<mailto:sob@harvard.edu>
To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] start WGLC ondraft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-04.txt

back on Nov 6th we sent out a WGLC on
draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-04.txt

there was no response to that last call that I can
find in the mail list archive (or in my memory)

we gotta see a bit more interest than that to proceed
with this document.

So, I'll try again

this is a WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-04.txt
please comment (one way or the other) by Feb 12

tnx

Scott
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg