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

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

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

From: Gocek, Gary (
Date: Thu Aug 03 2000 - 14:32:13 EDT

  • Next message: Ron Bergman: "PMP> Reminder: Last Call - Printer MIB]"

    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

    Gary Gocek, Xerox Corp.

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ron Bergman []
    > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 9:45 PM
    > To:
    > Cc:
    > 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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 14:40:49 EDT