please comment on draft-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

I am looking for comments on draft-ops-taddress-mib-01.txt. In
particular, I am looking for input on the open issues listed
in the document:

: 1.  Provide suitable transport domain and address format definitions
:     for DNS names, e.g.  www.tu-bs.de:80?
:
: 2.  This version adopts a URL format wherever possible, e.g.
:     10.1.2.3:80 instead of 10.1.2.3/80 for IPv4 and
:     [00:00:00:00:0A:01:02:03]:80 instead of
:     00:00:00:00:0A:01:02:03/80 for IPv6 (RFC 2732).  Is this useful?
:     Are the DISPLAY-HINTs to achieve the desired output format
:     acceptable?
:
: 3.  Need to find experts to review the TC definitions for protocols
:     we are not familiar with (TransportAddressOSI,
:     TransportAddressNBP, TransportAddressIPX).  Remove the TCs if no
:     expert can be found.
:
: 4.  Add references and REFERENCE clauses for the various address
:     formats? Probably copying stuff from RFC 1906? Are the references
:     in RFC 1906 still valid?
:
: 5.  Shall we add more explicit guidelines and examples for the usage
:     of the TransportAddressType TC, similar to what is in the INET-
:     ADDRESS-MIB document?
:
: 6.  Support for SCTP? How does it work with SCTP failover?
:
: 7.  Should we give guidance when to use the RFC 1906 definitions and
:     when to use the definitions provided by this memo?
:
: 8.  Any ideas for a better descriptor prefix to be used throughout
:     this MIB module?

Please read the document and share your comments so that we can get
this piece of work completed relatively soon.

/js