Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] review of draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:29:18 +0100

Hi,

I have reviewed <draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> following RFC 4181 and
here are my comments:

a) Boilerplate is OK and idnits 1.122 pass fine. The MIB modules
   compiles fine with smilint 0.4.1.

b) The abstract contains a reference, which is not allowed according
   to the guidelines.

c) The Uri TC uses "255a" as a display hint, which is technically
   correct. But any length number would actually work; perhaps "1a"
   looks less like a cut'n'paste thing. ;-)

d) - e) empty

f) Some RFC references list in addition an ID name as work in progress
   and an additional status; both I think should be removed. I am
   talking about [RFC3986], [RFC3305], [RFC3414], [RFC 3415]

g) RFC 4181 suggest a MIB name like URI-TC-MIB in appendix C but I
   leave it to the author to pick up this suggestion or not. (I just
   wanted to mention it.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		 Jacobs University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:47:56 +0100

Additional comments from a quick scan.

I see:

  !! Missing citation for Informative reference:
  P006 L045:    [RFC3305]  Mealling, M. and R. Denenberg, "Report from
the Joint W3C/

I see:
  URI-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

  IMPORTS
      MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2             FROM SNMPv2-SMI
      TEXTUAL-CONVENTION                 FROM SNMPv2-TC;

  langTagMIB MODULE-IDENTITY

MM... that langTagMIB MODULE_IDENTITY is also used in the other
document that has the LANGTAG-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

So that name should be changed here UI think.

For this:
    DESCRIPTION
           "Initial revision, published as RFC yyyy.

            Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).  The initial version of
            this MIB module was published in RFC yyyy; for full legal
            notices see the RFC itself.  Supplementary information may
            be available at:
            http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html."

remove the last sentence. This is not a IANA maintained module.
At least such is not requested anywhere.

For all 3 TCs, I wonder if a zero-length string is valid, and if so,
then
I would like to know what it means.

For the Security Considerations, I have the same comments as I 
had for the lnagtag-mib document.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: donderdag 8 februari 2007 17:29
> To: Dan Romascanu; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] review of draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have reviewed <draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> following RFC 
> 4181 and here are my comments:
>