[storm] idnits review of draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

idnits 2.12.00 reports a number of problems that will need to be
fixed.

tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(201): Line is too long: the
offending characters are 'precated.'
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(288): Line is too long: the
offending characters are 'ft; see'
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(340): Line is too long: the
offending characters are '."'
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(1485): RFC 2119 keyword:    It is
RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as.
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(1491): RFC 2119 keyword:
RECOMMENDED.  Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to.
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(1575): Line is too long: the
offending characters are 'ng and'
tmp/draft-ietf-storm-ifcpmib-00.txt(1576): Line is too long: the
offending characters are ' wish to'


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

  ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust
     Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep
2009
     Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching
beginning.
     Boilerplate error?

     IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i),
paragraph 3:
     "This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions
      Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)
      in effect on the date of publication of this document.  Please
      review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and
      restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
      extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License
      text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions
and
      are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD
      License."     

     ... text found in draft:
     "This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions
      Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication
of
.................................^
      this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please
review
      these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and
      restrictions with respect to this document."


     (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License
Notice from
     12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices.  See
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.)


  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

  ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the
longest one
     being 9 characters in excess of 72.

  ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
     recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC
2119
     keywords. 

     RFC 2119, paragraph 2:
     "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT",
      "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
      this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119."


  Miscellaneous warnings:
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line
does not
     match the current year

  -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first
     submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  Does it really need the
     disclaimer?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC4172' is defined on line 1336, but no
explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC4172]  Monia, C., Mullendore, R., Travostino, F., Jeong, W.,
and...'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2021 (Obsoleted by RFC 4502)


     Summary: 4 errors (**), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).


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