Skip to main content

MIB Textual Conventions for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Bill Fenner
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ted Hardie
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2007-07-09
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-07-09
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2007-07-03
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-07-03
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-07-02
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-07-02
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-07-02
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-07-02
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-03-22
04 Bill Fenner State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner
2007-03-22
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Bill Fenner
2007-03-22
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2007-03-22
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-03-22
04 (System) New version available: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-04.txt
2007-03-14
04 Bill Fenner State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Bill Fenner
2007-03-14
04 Bill Fenner
Moving to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed to reflect the result of the telechat.  Hopefully we can get the Revised ID during IETF week so this …
Moving to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed to reflect the result of the telechat.  Hopefully we can get the Revised ID during IETF week so this can be approved then.
2007-03-09
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-03-08
2007-03-08
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2007-03-08
04 Bill Fenner
[Ballot discuss]
Last Call comments to deal with:

- Hartman & Heard: Document title change

- Masinter & Farrel: discuss usage, what kind of uris …
[Ballot discuss]
Last Call comments to deal with:

- Hartman & Heard: Document title change

- Masinter & Farrel: discuss usage, what kind of uris

- Masinter (& Housley's discuss): US-ASCII

- Farrel: formatting stuff:
  - Comments in IMPORTS without brackets
  - extra "a" in "MUST be a normalized as defined"
  - Flesh out References clauses
  - Remove "arbitrary" from DESCRIPTION of Uri255 and Uri1024
  - Refer to RFC3305 in the text, such as "this module refers
    to [RFC3305] and imports objects from [...]"

- Hardie's issue:
The document says:

            This URI MUST be a normalized as defined in section 6 of
            RFC 3986 STD 66STD 66 defines that some parts of a URI
            are case-insensitive, but objects using this textual
            convention MUST use normalized URIs.  The purpose of this
            restriction is to help provide unique URIs for use as MIB
            table indexes.  Note that normalization of URIs does not
            by itself provide uniqueness: Two textually distinct
            normalized URIs may be equivalent.

Section 6 of RFC 3986 discusses multiple types of normalization,
including some which probably don't apply here (e.g. scheme
based and protocol specific).

I note that there was Last Call comment from Larry Masinter which was also not addressed;it
touched on the question of comparison as well.

-----------

- Dan's COMMENTs, especially the 3rd one
2007-03-08
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ted Hardie
2007-03-08
04 Sam Hartman
[Ballot comment]
As I said in a never-responded-to last call comment, I believe the
title of this document should make it clear that this is …
[Ballot comment]
As I said in a never-responded-to last call comment, I believe the
title of this document should make it clear that this is just a
textual convention and for example not a set of objects to manage URIs
served by a webserver.
2007-03-08
04 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-03-08
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-03-08
04 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2007-03-08
04 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2007-03-08
04 Bill Fenner
[Ballot discuss]
Last Call comments to deal with:

- Hartman & Heard: Document title change

- Masinter & Farrel: discuss usage, what kind of uris …
[Ballot discuss]
Last Call comments to deal with:

- Hartman & Heard: Document title change

- Masinter & Farrel: discuss usage, what kind of uris

- Masinter (& Housley's discuss): US-ASCII

- Farrel: formatting stuff:
  - Comments in IMPORTS without brackets
  - extra "a" in "MUST be a normalized as defined"
  - Flesh out References clauses
  - Remove "arbitrary" from DESCRIPTION of Uri255 and Uri1024
  - Refer to RFC3305 in the text, such as "this module refers
    to [RFC3305] and imports objects from [...]"
2007-03-08
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Bill Fenner
2007-03-07
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-03-07
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2007-03-07
04 Ted Hardie
[Ballot discuss]
The document says:

            This URI MUST be a normalized as defined in section 6 of
    …
[Ballot discuss]
The document says:

            This URI MUST be a normalized as defined in section 6 of
            RFC 3986 STD 66STD 66 defines that some parts of a URI
            are case-insensitive, but objects using this textual
            convention MUST use normalized URIs.  The purpose of this
            restriction is to help provide unique URIs for use as MIB
            table indexes.  Note that normalization of URIs does not
            by itself provide uniqueness: Two textually distinct
            normalized URIs may be equivalent.

Section 6 of RFC 3986 discusses multiple types of normalization,
including some which probably don't apply here (e.g. scheme
based and protocol specific).

I note that there was Last Call comment from Larry Masinter which was also not addressed;it
touched on the question of comparison as well.
2007-03-07
04 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
During last call Larry Masinter wrote:
  >
  > URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
  …
[Ballot discuss]
During last call Larry Masinter wrote:
  >
  > URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
  > octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and
  > not implicit.
  >
  I never saw a response.  I think that the OCTET STRING MUST contain
  a US-ASCII string.
2007-03-07
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-03-07
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2007-03-07
04 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Adrian Farrel and Bert Wijnen contributed to the comments below:

1. The Introduction seems rather skimpy. This would be a good place to …
[Ballot comment]
Adrian Farrel and Bert Wijnen contributed to the comments below:

1. The Introduction seems rather skimpy. This would be a good place to present an overview of the content of the MIB module and, in particular, a discussion of the text in the Description clauses with some guidance on how to choose between the three TCs that are defined.

2. All three Description clauses contain "...MUST be a normalized as defined..."
This should read "...MUST be normalized as defined..."

3. All 3 TCs speak about use of these TCs as indices. If this is the case it may be wise to add some text that explains that
- there is an absolute limit of 128 subids for an OID
- even if the length is such that an OID is within 128 subids,
  it is not very efficient to have (very) long OIDs, so it is not
  very efficient to have an index of a URI that is up to say 120
  octets.
2007-03-07
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-03-07
04 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Asrian Farrel and Bert Wijnen contributed to the comments below:

1. The Introduction seems rather skimpy. This would be a good place to …
[Ballot comment]
Asrian Farrel and Bert Wijnen contributed to the comments below:

1. The Introduction seems rather skimpy. This would be a good place to present an overview of the content of the MIB module and, in particular, a discussion of the text in the Description clauses with some guidance on how to choose between the three TCs that are defined.

2. All three Description clauses contain "...MUST be a normalized as defined..."
This should read "...MUST be normalized as defined..."

3. All 3 TCs speak about use of these TCs as an index (or indexes; I though the plural is indices; but who is me).

Anyway, if they are (often) used as an index, it may be wise to add some text that explains that
- there is an absolute limit of 128 subids for an OID
- even if the length is such that an OID is within 128 subids,
  it is not very efficient to have (very) long OIDs, so it is not
  very efficient to have an index of a URI that is up to say 120
  octets.
2007-03-07
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-03-06
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-03-06
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-03-02
04 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner
2007-03-02
04 Bill Fenner Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner
2007-03-02
04 Bill Fenner Created "Approve" ballot
2007-03-01
03 (System) New version available: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-03.txt
2007-02-21
04 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a mib-2 number
for URI-MIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at thefollowing …
IANA Last Call Comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will assign a mib-2 number
for URI-MIB in the Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2
(1.3.6.1.2.1) at thefollowing location:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

We understand this to be the only IANA Action for this document.
2007-02-13
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2007-02-13
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2007-02-12
04 Bill Fenner
Gen-ART review:

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 …
Gen-ART review:

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
Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
2007-02-08
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-02-08
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-02-08
04 Bill Fenner Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-03-08 by Bill Fenner
2007-02-08
04 Bill Fenner Putting it on IESG agenda for when the Last Call ends
2007-02-08
04 Bill Fenner Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner
2007-02-08
04 Bill Fenner State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner
2007-02-08
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-02-08
04 (System) Last call text was added
2007-02-08
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-02-08
04 Bill Fenner State Changes to Publication Requested from Publication Requested::AD Followup by Bill Fenner
2007-02-08
04 Bill Fenner
Juergen Schoenwaelder provided a MIB Dr. Review.  Let's consider the changes required during the IETF Last Call and submit a revised version for the IESG …
Juergen Schoenwaelder provided a MIB Dr. Review.  Let's consider the changes required during the IETF Last Call and submit a revised version for the IESG telechat.

Hi,

I have reviewed  following RFC 4181 and
here are my comments:

a) Boilerplate is OK and idnits 1.122 pass fine. The MIB modules
  compiles fine with smilint 0.4.1.

b) The abstract contains a reference, which is not allowed according
  to the guidelines.

c) The Uri TC uses "255a" as a display hint, which is technically
  correct. But any length number would actually work; perhaps "1a"
  looks less like a cut'n'paste thing. ;-)

d) - e) empty

f) Some RFC references list in addition an ID name as work in progress
  and an additional status; both I think should be removed. I am
  talking about [RFC3986], [RFC3305], [RFC3414], [RFC 3415]

g) RFC 4181 suggest a MIB name like URI-TC-MIB in appendix C but I
  leave it to the author to pick up this suggestion or not. (I just
  wanted to mention it.)

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder            Jacobs University Bremen
  P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
2007-02-07
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-02-07
02 (System) New version available: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
2007-02-02
04 Bill Fenner State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner
2007-02-02
04 Bill Fenner oops, the MODULE-IDENTITY is langTagMIB
2007-02-02
04 Bill Fenner note to self: send IETF Last Call to uri-review@ietf.org and uri@w3.org
2007-01-16
04 Bill Fenner Draft Added by Bill Fenner in state Publication Requested
2006-11-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-01.txt
2006-11-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-00.txt