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 66. STD 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 66. STD 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 |