Hi, Monday (6 June 2011)
High North has reviewed the three draft WIMS project charters and has
comments.
Cheers,
- Ira
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Comments on 15 May draft of MFD Alerts Project Charter]
Line 22 - bad reference
- change "[IANAPRT]" to "[RFC3805]"
Line 36 - bad document status
- change "existing specification" to "existing draft"
Line 39 - typo
- change "MDF" to "MFD"
Line 46-47 - bad reference
- change "IANA Printer MIB [IANAPRT]" to "IETF Printer MIB v2 [RFC3805]"
Line 53 - ambiguous reference
- change "Printer MIB [IANAPRT]" to "IANA Printer MIB [IANAPRT]"
Line 63-64 - out-of-date milestone
- change "for formal vote.- May 2011"
to "for Last Call - June 2011"
- charters can't milestone a Formal Vote
Line 69 - out-of-date milestone
- change "July 2011" to "August 2011" (for Prototype draft)
Line 73 - invalid milestone
- delete SMT-1 entirely - charters can't milestone a Formal Vote
Line 73 - ambiguous milestone name
- change "SMT-2" to " IANA-1"
Line 93 - missing reference
- add
[RFC3805] IETF Printer MIB v2, R. Bergman, H. Lewis, I. McDonald,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3805.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Comments on 15 May draft of CMMI Charter]
Line 22 - bad reference
- change "[IANAPRT]" to "[RFC3805]"
Line 23 - ambiguous references
- change "MIB-II and the HR MIB."
to "IETF MIB-II [RFC1213] and IETF Host Resources MIB v2 [RFC 2790]."
Line 28 - missing word
- change "is now" to "it is now"
Line 29 - ambiguous reference
- change "NETCONF" to "IETF NETCONF [RFC4741]".
Line 45-47 - typos and bad scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2
- change ""Human Direct" (console, remote console and internal Web
Sever)"
to "human-readable (console, remote console, and internal Web server)"
- move this section to Phase 2 *after* experience of Phase 1
Line 47 - capitalization
- change "phase 2" to "Phase 2"
Line 47 - missing document name paragraph
- add paragraph (like IPP EW charter) w/ "Therefore..." and filename
Line 54-55 - bad scope
- change "other project or working group."
to "other project, PWG working group, or standards body."
Line 58 - missing word
- change "Definition any" to "Definition of any"
Line 60-61 - typos and bad scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2
- same change as line 45-47 above
Line 62 - bad reference
- change "Semantic Model" to "MFD Model [PWG5108.01]"
- there is no stable Semantic Model/2.0 reference
Line 62 - ambiguous term
- change "levels" to "classes"
Line 65-66 - scope error
- delete sentence entirely
"This includes a definition of permitted values for each element."
- SNMP MIB objects and IPP attributes ALREADY define allowed values
Line 69-70 - scope error
- delete clause entirely
"and where applicable, mandatory values of elements,"
- recommended (but not mandatory) values may be appropriate for a
small subset of elements (a few dozen across ALL of the SNMP MIBs)
- rationale - remember ANY allowed value IS a legal value
Line 71 - ambiguous term
- change "level" to "class"
Line 73-74 - scope error
- delete sentence entirely
"This includes a definition of permitted values for each element."
- see line 65-66 above
Line 76-77 - scope error
- delete clause entirely
"and where applicable, mandatory values of elements,"
- see line 69-70 above
Line 78 - ambiguous term
- change "level" to "class"
Line 82-83 - out-of-date milestone
- change "for formal vote.- May 2011"
to "for Last Call - June 2011"
- charters can't milestone a Formal Vote
Line 84-99 - missing milestone short names
- change "Phase 1 Levels" to "PHASE1-CLASSES" (for example)
Line 85 - ambiguous term
- change "Device Levels" to "Device Classes"
- see line 62 above
Line 88 - bad scope of Phase 1 and Phase 2
- move Phase 1 Direct to Phase 2
- see line 45-47 above
Line 90-95 - bad order of milestones
- *all* Phase 1 milestones MUST complete before any Phase 2 drafts
- any other approach can't be change-controlled
Line 95 - invalid milestone
- delete "Phase 1 SMT" entirely - charters can't milestone Formal Vote
Line 99 - invalid milestone
- delete "Phase 2 SMT" entirely - charters can't milestone Formal Vote
Line 104 - missing references
- add
[RFC3805] IETF Printer MIB v2, R. Bergman, H. Lewis, I. McDonald,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3805.txt
[RFC4741] IETF NETCONF, R. Enns,
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4741.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Comments on 15 May draft of CIM Printer Profile Charter]
Line 2 - scope error
- change "DMTF/CIM" to "PWG CIM"
Line 20 - missing references
- change "Printer MIB and IPP attributes"
to "IETF Printer MIB v2 [RFC3805] and IETF IPP [RFC2911] elements"
Line 23 - wrong term
- change "CIM format" to "CIM classes"
Line 25 - ambiguous term
- change "established" to "standard"
Line 27 - bad scope of standards bodies
- replace first two clauses of this sentence entirely with
"A DMTF CIM Management Profile which may only be defined and approved
within the DMTF (by a chartered DMTF CIM working group),"
Line 32 - bad scope
- change "any compliant printer" to "any compliant device"
Line 33 - ambiguous pronoun
- change "It identifies" to "A CIM Profile identifies"
Line 34-39 - bad scope of standards bodies
- PWG *cannot* formally standardize the use of non-Printer CIM classes
- there is no such authority granted by the DMTF
Line 52 - impossible objective
- DMTF guards copyright to their CIM Profile format - it is NOT public
Line 71 - missing references
- add [RFC3805] and [RFC2911]
Line 40-71
- project charter needs to be rewritten for legal scope per DMTF
- if the PWG develops a profile as a Best Practice then it must ONLY
reference Printer-specific CIM classes (actually, quite useful)
- in collaboration with Rick Landau (co-chair DMTF CIM Core WG)
Ira would be willing to try to rewrite this project charter
- PWG first Formal Approval is NOT the process we have used for the
past 6 years in DMTF/PWG Alliance work on CIM Printing classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/wims/attachments/20110606/a04ccdb8/attachment-0001.html>