Subject: RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review: draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txtTopic: References and NITS/Editorial

From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:58:45 -0600

The nits v1.74 and v1.77 seem to produce the same error based on  IP
normative text 

I believe that can be covered after getting the IETF last call and IESG
revision ( I will check the detail log attached below and compare the
little odds things that might be

I add manually the boilerplate of RFC 3978 since I believe XML2RFC is
still handling the requirements from RFc 3667

See more details inline: 

- Reference/citation problem:
     !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
     P139 L016:     [IANA]     Internet Assigned Numbers Authority,
"Data-Over-Cable
  An easy fix would be:
  OLD:
        IANAifType
                FROM IANAifType-MIB;
  NEW:
        IANAifType
                FROM IANAifType-MIB;  -- [IANA]

  If we're going to do a new revision, then pls update all citations
  and reference to RFC3291 into one for RFC4001.

<edo>
Done

Added:
[IANA]       "Protocol Numbers and Assignment Services", IANA,
                http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib.
</edo>

NITS/Editorial

- From an earlier review (6 Jan 2005) by Randy and not yet
  addressed:
    5) EDITORIAL: "reinit" -> "reinitialization"

docsIfUpChannelPreEqEnable 

     DESCRIPTION
         "At the CMTS, used to enable or disable pre-equalization on
          the upstream channel represented by this table instance.
          At the CM, this object is read-only and reflects the
          status of pre-equalization as represented in the RNG-RSP.
          Pre-equalization is considered enabled at the CM if a
          RNG-RSP with pre-equalization data has been received at
          least once since the last mac reinitialization."

    6) EDITORIAL: "ie" -> "i.e.", or better "that is"

<edo>
done
</edo>

    12) EDITORIAL: "head-end" or "headend"?  pick one,
        preferably the former.
<edo>
head-end
</edo>

    13) EDITORIAL: there are some strange capitalizations:
         "Lineup" in 2.11
         "Addressed" in 3.2  (although that is fixed now,
                              now it is in 3.1.4)
        I checked the above 2. Not the next ones. But did you?
         "Downstream" in 3.2.5.1 and elsewhere
         "Cable" in 3.2.5.1.2

-> changed to cable modem, and cablemodem termination system (lowercase)
for cases where indicates quantity (cable modems, "each cablemodem",
"individual cablemodem" etc. or when no referred as a device
requirement, e.g. in CMTS requirements that poin to CM properties like
in docsIfCmtsCmStatusTable

         "Unicast" on page 12 & 14 & more
         "Multicast" on page 12 & 14 & more
         "Broadcast" on page 12 & 14 & more
         "Upstream" in 3.2.5.2.1
         "Contributions" in 5
    15) EDITORIAL: "empty string" would be more precise as
        "zero length string" 
        (This could potentially be technical.)
-> zero-length OCTET STRING
   I really wonder why the editors do not take such comments
   of a carefull review into account when they do a new rev.

For completeness, if you do a new rev:
idnits 1.74

--> here is 
     I ran idnits-v1.77 ( I will check the verbose mode to see where the
inconsistencies are) 

bash-2.05b$ ./idnits-v1.77 --verbose
draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14_version2.
txt
idnits 1.77 (21 Aug 2005)

draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-14_version2.txt:

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching
beginning.
    Boilerplate error?

  (Expected a match on the following text:
    "By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
    applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
    have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
    aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79."

   ... but found this:
    "By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
    applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
    have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
    aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79")
...................................................................^

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:02:58 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Eduardo Cardona" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Ipcdn (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] RE: AD re-review:draft-ietf-ipcdn-docs-rfmibv2-13.txtTopic: References andNITS/Editorial
...
> still handling the requirements from RFc 3667
...

With current xml2rfc, just use
<rfc ipr='full3978' etc.

Randy