attachment-0001
Hi, Monday (6 June 2011)<br><br>High North has reviewed the three draft WIMS project charters and has <br>comments.<br><br>Cheers,<br>- Ira<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br> [Comments on 15 May draft of MFD Alerts Project Charter]<br><br>Line 22 - bad reference<br>- change "[IANAPRT]" to "[RFC3805]"<br><br>Line 36 - bad document status<br>- change "existing specification" to "existing draft"<br>
<br>Line 39 - typo<br>- change "MDF" to "MFD"<br><br>Line 46-47 - bad reference<br>- change "IANA Printer MIB [IANAPRT]" to "IETF Printer MIB v2 [RFC3805]"<br><br>Line 53 - ambiguous reference<br>
- change "Printer MIB [IANAPRT]" to "IANA Printer MIB [IANAPRT]"<br><br>Line 63-64 - out-of-date milestone<br>- change "for formal vote.- May 2011"<br> to "for Last Call - June 2011"<br>
- charters can't milestone a Formal Vote<br><br>Line 69 - out-of-date milestone<br>- change "July 2011" to "August 2011" (for Prototype draft)<br><br>Line 73 - invalid milestone<br>- delete SMT-1 entirely - charters can't milestone a Formal Vote<br>
<br>Line 73 - ambiguous milestone name<br>- change "SMT-2" to " IANA-1"<br><br>Line 93 - missing reference<br>- add<br>[RFC3805] IETF Printer MIB v2, R. Bergman, H. Lewis, I. McDonald,<br><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3805.txt">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3805.txt</a><br>
<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br> [Comments on 15 May draft of CMMI Charter]<br><br>Line 22 - bad reference<br>- change "[IANAPRT]" to "[RFC3805]"<br>
<br>Line 23 - ambiguous references<br>- change "MIB-II and the HR MIB."<br> to "IETF MIB-II [RFC1213] and IETF Host Resources MIB v2 [RFC 2790]."<br><br>Line 28 - missing word<br>- change "is now" to "it is now"<br>
<br>Line 29 - ambiguous reference<br>- change "NETCONF" to "IETF NETCONF [RFC4741]".<br><br>Line 45-47 - typos and bad scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2<br>- change ""Human Direct" (console, remote console and internal Web<br>
Sever)"<br> to "human-readable (console, remote console, and internal Web server)"<br>- move this section to Phase 2 *after* experience of Phase 1<br><br>Line 47 - capitalization<br>- change "phase 2" to "Phase 2"<br>
<br>Line 47 - missing document name paragraph<br>- add paragraph (like IPP EW charter) w/ "Therefore..." and filename<br><br>Line 54-55 - bad scope<br>- change "other project or working group."<br> to "other project, PWG working group, or standards body."<br>
<br>Line 58 - missing word<br>- change "Definition any" to "Definition of any"<br><br>Line 60-61 - typos and bad scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2<br>- same change as line 45-47 above<br><br>Line 62 - bad reference<br>
- change "Semantic Model" to "MFD Model [PWG5108.01]"<br> - there is no stable Semantic Model/2.0 reference<br><br>Line 62 - ambiguous term<br>- change "levels" to "classes"<br><br>
Line 65-66 - scope error<br>- delete sentence entirely<br> "This includes a definition of permitted values for each element."<br> - SNMP MIB objects and IPP attributes ALREADY define allowed values<br><br>Line 69-70 - scope error<br>
- delete clause entirely<br> "and where applicable, mandatory values of elements,"<br> - recommended (but not mandatory) values may be appropriate for a<br> small subset of elements (a few dozen across ALL of the SNMP MIBs)<br>
- rationale - remember ANY allowed value IS a legal value<br><br>Line 71 - ambiguous term<br>- change "level" to "class"<br><br>Line 73-74 - scope error<br>- delete sentence entirely<br> "This includes a definition of permitted values for each element."<br>
- see line 65-66 above<br><br>Line 76-77 - scope error<br>- delete clause entirely<br> "and where applicable, mandatory values of elements,"<br> - see line 69-70 above<br><br>Line 78 - ambiguous term<br>- change "level" to "class"<br>
<br>Line 82-83 - out-of-date milestone<br>- change "for formal vote.- May 2011"<br> to "for Last Call - June 2011"<br> - charters can't milestone a Formal Vote<br><br>Line 84-99 - missing milestone short names<br>
- change "Phase 1 Levels" to "PHASE1-CLASSES" (for example)<br><br>Line 85 - ambiguous term<br>- change "Device Levels" to "Device Classes"<br> - see line 62 above<br><br>Line 88 - bad scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2<br>
- move Phase 1 Direct to Phase 2<br> - see line 45-47 above<br><br>Line 90-95 - bad order of milestones<br>- *all* Phase 1 milestones MUST complete before any Phase 2 drafts<br> - any other approach can't be change-controlled<br>
<br>Line 95 - invalid milestone<br>- delete "Phase 1 SMT" entirely - charters can't milestone Formal Vote<br><br>Line 99 - invalid milestone<br>- delete "Phase 2 SMT" entirely - charters can't milestone Formal Vote<br>
<br>Line 104 - missing references<br>- add<br>[RFC3805] IETF Printer MIB v2, R. Bergman, H. Lewis, I. McDonald,<br><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3805.txt">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3805.txt</a><br><br>[RFC4741] IETF NETCONF, R. Enns,<br>
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4741.txt">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4741.txt</a><br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br> [Comments on 15 May draft of CIM Printer Profile Charter]<br>
<br>Line 2 - scope error<br>- change "DMTF/CIM" to "PWG CIM"<br><br>Line 20 - missing references<br>- change "Printer MIB and IPP attributes"<br> to "IETF Printer MIB v2 [RFC3805] and IETF IPP [RFC2911] elements"<br>
<br>Line 23 - wrong term<br>- change "CIM format" to "CIM classes"<br><br>Line 25 - ambiguous term<br>- change "established" to "standard"<br><br>Line 27 - bad scope of standards bodies<br>
- replace first two clauses of this sentence entirely with<br> "A DMTF CIM Management Profile which may only be defined and approved<br> within the DMTF (by a chartered DMTF CIM working group),"<br><br>Line 32 - bad scope<br>
- change "any compliant printer" to "any compliant device"<br><br>Line 33 - ambiguous pronoun<br>- change "It identifies" to "A CIM Profile identifies"<br><br>Line 34-39 - bad scope of standards bodies<br>
- PWG *cannot* formally standardize the use of non-Printer CIM classes<br> - there is no such authority granted by the DMTF<br><br>Line 52 - impossible objective<br>- DMTF guards copyright to their CIM Profile format - it is NOT public<br>
<br>Line 71 - missing references<br>- add [RFC3805] and [RFC2911]<br><br>Line 40-71<br>- project charter needs to be rewritten for legal scope per DMTF<br> - if the PWG develops a profile as a Best Practice then it must ONLY<br>
reference Printer-specific CIM classes (actually, quite useful)<br><br> - in collaboration with Rick Landau (co-chair DMTF CIM Core WG)<br> Ira would be willing to try to rewrite this project charter<br><br> - PWG first Formal Approval is NOT the process we have used for the<br>
past 6 years in DMTF/PWG Alliance work on CIM Printing classes<br><br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br clear="all"><br>
<div style="visibility: hidden; left: -5000px;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup{position: absolute;z-index: 9999;padding: 0px 0px;margin-left: 0px;margin-top: 0px;overflow: hidden;word-wrap: break-word;color: black;font-size: 10px;text-align: left;line-height: 130%;}</style>
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.