[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: quick check of notification-11
Ok, thanks Tom.
W.r.t.
> "Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA is requested to make the following
> registration "
>
> rather than
>
> "Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following
> registration"
>
> thinking that the former is politer - but then IANA my prefer to
Yep, that is my feeling too. But since the text has gone out in IETF LC
in that (unpolite) style, I did not want to change that. In the end, this
is the text that should end up in the RFC. Maybe a good compromise would be
-- Editor note to IANA/RFC-Editor: we request that you make these
-- assignments, in shich case it is top be documented as below
"Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following
registration"
Oh well.
Bert Wijnen
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: tom.petch [mailto:cfinss@dial.pipex.com]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 25 januari 2008 10:26
> Aan: Bert Wijnen; Netconf (E-mail)
> Onderwerp: Re: quick check of notification-11
>
>
> Bert
>
> Yes, I agree, I think these are unresolved and that your
> suggestions are good.
> I would be inclined to say
>
> "Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA is requested to make the following
> registration "
>
> rather than
>
> "Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following
> registration"
>
> thinking that the former is politer - but then IANA my prefer to
> have the words
> put in their mouth:-) (I will ask them one day).
>
> netmod is the to-be-created Netconf data model, much discussed in
> 2004/5; you
> will find that the URI for it was issue 7 in the tracker in July
> 2007. I think
> it should be kept quite distinct from the other netconf URI until
> and when it
> takes a more concrete form.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bert Wijnen" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
> To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>; "Netconf (E-mail)"
> <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:13 PM
> Subject: RE: quick check of notification-11
>
>
> > Tom, as netconf-noticiation document shepherd, I am checking
> > all (possibly still) outsanding comments. I think that the
> > one from you (below) is still unanswered.
> >
> > My comments questions inline
> >
> > Bert Wijnen
> >
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]Namens tom.petch
> > > Verzonden: maandag 17 december 2007 16:18
> > > Aan: Andy Bierman; Netconf (E-mail)
> > > Onderwerp: Re: quick check of notification-11
> > >
> > >
> > > A minor quirk - I see a missing solidus in 3.2.5.1
> > > "<netconf xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netmod:notification">
> > > <streams/>
> > > <netconf>
> > > "
> > >
> >
> > I think you mean that the last <netconf> tag should be a
> > closing tag: </netconf>?
> > So the above 3 lines should read:
> >
> > "<netconf xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netmod:notification">
> > <streams/>
> > </netconf>
> >
> > right?
> >
> > > and an uncertainty - the I-D does not register the XML Schema
> defined in
> > > sections 4 and 3.4, just their targetNamespace; is this intentional?
> > >
> >
> > Not sure yet. I need to check.
> > Andy (or netconf-monitoring authors, can you pls comment?
> >
> >
> > > Also in IANA considerations, it might be clearer if the
> > > registration of the capability urn refers to the named registry
> > > created by RFC4741 s.10.3; obvious to those up to their ears in
> > > netconf, perhaps less so to those with an IANA-wide remit.
> > >
> >
> > I think you are ricght. Re-reading the IANA considerations in this
> > draft and also in RFC4741, maybe that section should be rewritten as:
> >
> > 8. IANA Considerations
> >
> > 8.1 NETCONF XML Namespace
> >
> > This document registers a URI for the NETCONF XML namespace
> > [RFC4741, section 10.1) in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
> >
> > Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following
> > registration:
> >
> > URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0
> >
> > Registrant Contact: The IESG.
> >
> > XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
> >
> > 8.2 ??
> >
> > 8.3 NETCONF Capability URNs
> >
> > This document registers URNs for the the following NETCONF
> > capabilities in the netconf registry (RFC4741], sect 10.3):
> >
> > +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
> > | Index | Capability Identifier |
> > +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
> > | :notification | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability: |
> > | | notification:1.0 |
> > | | running:1.0 |
> > | | |
> > | :interleave | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability: |
> > | | interleave:1.0 |
> > +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
> >
> > I am not sure (yet) where to put the following.
> > Is that part of the NETCONF XML namespace (i.e. should it
> > go in sect 8.1 above?):
> >
> > URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netmod:notification
> >
> > Anyway, Tom, is this the direction you were looking for?
> >
> > Any comments from authors or WG participants?
> >
> > Bert
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>