review of draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-00.txt

["Bert Wijnen" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>]

Here is my initial review. Mainly editorial/administrative
for now.

- general. There are quite a few ID-NITS as per:

   http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring/draft-ietf
-netconf-monitoring-00.nits.txt

- general. I wonder.... is this all we want to write for these type
  of content models? I.e. just the schema and no explanatory text
  in english as to what the schema represents?

- It seems that wherever you have citations, you have omitted
  white psace. For example

     [NETCONF]can be ...
     described in[RFC2119].
     Element:  An[XML]Element.

- By the way, I personally like citations of the form [RFC4741] better
  than of the form [NETCONF], because that way I can quicker pick up the
  referenced RFC. Best I think would be to change

     [NETCONF] can be ...

  into

     NETCONF [RFC4741] can be....

  Anyway, I know this is subjective so will respect your choice.

- I think that in the Security COnsiderations you should be more specific
  as to what kind of data/information we speak about and explain how/why
  that data is a possibly security risk when in the wrong hands.

- For
   [NETCONF-EVENT]
              Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
              Notifications", ID draft-ietf-netconf-notifications-06,
              February 2007.

  I have already posted that the "s" is not part of the
  name of the WG draft (i.e. currently it is
     draft-ietf-netconf-notifications-11, NOV 2007)

- For
   [XML Schema]
              Fallside, D. and P. Walmsley, "XML Schema Part 0: Primer
              Second Edition", W3C XML Schema, October 2004.

  would you not want to add a ptr to the website? I think it is:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/

- Good news. The schema seems valid:

   Schema validating with XSV 3.1-1 of 2007/12/11 16:20:05
   Target: file:/usr/local/XSV/xsvlog/tmprFp4kbuploaded
      (Real name: C:\bwietf\netconf-wg\monitoring-schema.xml)
   docElt: {http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema}schema
   Validation was strict, starting with type [Anonymous]
   The schema(s) used for schema-validation had no errors
   No schema-validity problems were found in the target

  Not that that means I can read/understand it.
  That will be a next step, after which I may have more
  comments/questions.

Bert Wijnen


--
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/>