PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Comments on draft-ietf-printermib-mib

PMP Mail Archive: PMP> Comments on draft-ietf-printermib-mib

PMP> Comments on draft-ietf-printermib-mib-info-05.txt

From: Ron Bergman (
Date: Wed Aug 02 2000 - 21:45:09 EDT

  • Next message: Gocek, Gary: "PMP> RE: Comments on draft-ietf-printermib-mib-info-05.txt"


    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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 02 2000 - 21:40:03 EDT