Gary,
Although the following items do not affect the technical
content of the MIB, they may result in a delay when the
document is reviewed by the IESG or the RFC editor. I
would classify all as "nice to have" in the next draft.
1. You should add your name to the authors section and
to the cover page. Especially since you completed the
final push to get the document completed!
2. The table of contents should be single spaced. I checked
several other documents and could not find any with other
than a single spaced table of contents.
3. There references to the IPP specifications in chIPP(44),
as indicated using square brackets. The corresponding
entries are not in the references section (section 10),
but rather included at the end of this Textual
Convention entry. It would be best to move these to
section 10. One of the comments on the Job MIB was there
was too much specification type information in the
comments section of the MIB. This TC entry has over 2
pages of specification in the comments!
4. Some of the references in chIPP(44) do not have square
brackets and should be changed. For example, "see RFC
2565/2566" S/B "see [RFC2565] and [RFC2566]".
5. RFCs are presently indicated in three different ways;
RFC XXXX, RFCXXXX, and RFC-XXXX. From the review of
other documents, it appears that the format RFCXXXX is
used as a pointer to the references section and otherwise
the RFC XXXX is used. Consistency is most important and
presently that is missing.
6. This is the BIG one! IETF standards require that the
text that follows the lines with paragraph numbers be
indented by three characters. RFC 1759 was formatted
per this requirement. I am not sure if this is a task
that the RFC Editor will assume or will he pass the
document back to the WG Editor. (Note that this does
not affect the MIB body, but it still a major task.)
We could submit as is and see if it is accepted.
Ron Bergman
Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions