Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:57:56 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2007-02-11
IETF LC End Date: 2007-03-08
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Almost Ready

Comments: as already signaled this document has a real issue with its title.
I recommend to take a model, for instance RFC 2851.

Some minor details:
 - ToC and 6, pages 2 and 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
 - 2 page 3: the way STD 58 is referenced is inelegant (but it seems the
   issue is more in the STD 58 covering multiple RFCs...)
 - 6 page 6: perhaps to add the "editor" mention is the thing to do?
 - 7 pages 6 and 8: to cite the last I-D and status of RFCs is not the usage.

Regards

[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:19:31 -0800

>   issue is more in the STD 58 covering multiple RFCs...)

This is copied from the MIB boilerplate; see
http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html

The awkward references have come up a few times, but it's not
appropriate to change them in a given document - you just copy the
boilerplate into your document.

  Bill