----- Original Message -----
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
To: "'Tom.Petch'" <sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>; "'ietf'"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A Template
Yup.
Trying to figure out how to publish this in an internet-draft has been
challenging to say the least.
(publishing the xml2rfc template in an xml2rfc document is even more
challenging!)
The template, in both text and xml2rfc format, has been available on
the OPS website since July.
Thanks for the suggestion of using an appendix; I'll consider that
possibility.
I think that the reference to the web site should be in the I-D/RFC; I had not
thought of looking for it there.
I think too that we need to make MIB documents easier to produce and so better
and that this is along the right lines but that, like RFC4181, it does not quite
do it.
My thinking is that the editor of such a document wants to see
- what they might come up with
- how to do it and
- why.
The how is the XML and belongs on a web site (and could also make a good
appendix) but where I most want to change this I-D is the separation of what the
end result is from the why, so my proposed appendix would have a section of eg
IANA considerations showing the possible end result as submitted to the RFC
Editor while the main body has an equivalently numbered section which discusses
the rooting of the MIB module in mib-2 or transmission or elsewhere with
reference to RFC4181 for the more abstruse ideas..
Ditto other sections.
Tom Petch
dbh
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom.Petch [mailto:sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:14 AM
To: ietf
Subject: Re: Last Call:
draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A Template
I think that the idea behind this draft is a good one but
that the choice of
technology is wrong.
The template should be on a web site available for download
and that the way to
get it there is the same as is used eg to get SMI TCs on to a
website, namely
publish it as an appendix to an RFC, so the body of the RFC
is a proper RFC,
formatted as usual, with the usual genuine comments to the
RFC Editor, IANA etc
and the appendix is then labelled 'do not touch' as far as
RFC Editor, IANA etc
are concerned and provides the material which will be loaded
on to the website.
The Appendix would benefit from a convention so show that the
sections therein
are at a second level, eg a marking or escape character
before each section
head, which is removed when the Appendix is placed on to the web
site.
The current approach of interleaving what will appear in the
template, comments
thereon and the normal RFC material is likely to confuse all
who come after.
Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf