RE: FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt

Can the author/editor and/or the WG react please.
I need (if possible) an answer by tomorrow (Thursday) 11am US
eastern at the latest (that is, if we want to try and get this 
approved this week).

Bert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: entmib-bounces <at> ietf.org 
> [mailto:entmib-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf
> Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 01:05
> To: Entmib-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: [Entmib] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
> 
> 
> Feedback from IESG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Ted Hardie
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 23:28
> To: iesg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
> 
> 
> Minor, but should be fixed.  The document currently says:
> 
> entPhysicalUris OBJECT-TYPE
>      SYNTAX      OCTET STRING
>      MAX-ACCESS  read-write
>      STATUS      current
>      DESCRIPTION
>              "This object contains additional identification 
> information
>              about the physical entity. The object contains URIs and
>              therefore the syntax of this object must conform to RFC
>              2396, section 2.
> 
>              Multiple URIs may be present and are separated by white
>              space characters. Leading and trailing white space
>              characters are ignored.
> 
>              If no additional identification information is known or
>              supported about the physical entity the object is not
>              instantiated.  A zero length octet string may also be
>              returned in this case."
>      REFERENCE
>              "RFC 2396, Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic
>              Syntax, section 2, August 1998."
> 
> This should be updated to the new URI RFC and a pointer to the
> appropriate syntax restrictions.  This text also does not limit
> the types of URIs which may be present.  If they are limited,
> an enumerated list should be included.
> 
> The document also uses "CLEI URI" to refer to a URN in the CLEI
> namespace.  That's technically correct, but it would be easier
> to understand if CLEI URN was used.  Here's an example:
> 
>      The entPhysicalUris object may be used to encode for 
> example a URI
>      containing a Common Language Equipment Identifier (CLEI) URI for
>      the managed physical entity. The URN name space for CLEIs is
>      defined in [RFC CLEIURN], and the CLEI format is defined in
>      [T1.213][T1.213a]. 
> 
> Simply swapping out (CLEI) URI for (CLEI) URN would be fine.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Entmib mailing list
> Entmib <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib
>