Sam Hartman wrote:
The title of this document is very confusing and should be revised to
include the string textual convention.
Seeing this last call announcement I was very puzzled why anyone
thought it would be a good idea to hae a MIB for monitoring and
managing all the URIs on a managed system. I was gratified to find
that this is not what the document was about.
I strongly agree with the above comments. For the title I would
recommend:
Textual Conventions for Representing Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URIs)
In the same vein, I would recommend URI-TC-MIB for the module name
and uriTcMIB for the descriptor representing the MODULE-IDENTITY
value. Note that these recommendations are consistent with the
(non-binding) advice in Appendix C of RFC 4181 (the MIB review
guidelines).
//cmh
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf