Without having actually opened the document for editing, I'd say that these
items look do-able, to be released next week, after the 'last call' period
ends.
Gary Gocek, Xerox Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bergman [mailto:rbergma at hitachi-hkis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:45 PM
> To: ggocek at crt.xerox.com> Cc: pmp at pwg.org> Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-printermib-mib-info-05.txt
>>> 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.
>> 7. Added by Gary G as a reminder: Check for 65 char margins
> early in doc. 72 is correct and is used after the TOC.
>>> Ron Bergman
> Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions