[Ballot discuss]
I am troubled by the fact that this does not cover InetAddress from
RFC 2851, i.e., only IPv4 addresses can be mapped. I realize that
the document says it only concerns itself with RFC 2578 datatypes,
but I do not think we should be publishing any RFCs in 2010 that
do not fully support both IPv4 and IPv6. Or is there some companion
document that defines the other types?

[Ballot comment]
Global nit

The phrasing is inconsistent when datatypes are named.  Here are a few examples:
    XSD datatype "hexBinary"
  "hexBinary" XSD datatype
    XSD "string" datatype
This is a nitpick, but a consistent phrasing is a little easier on the reader.

(1) I suspect this is clear to the expected audience, so this is a comment rather than a
discuss, but I found sections 5.2 through 5.5 a bit confusing since the simple types defined
in section 4 (e.g., OctetString and IpAddress) seem to be used interchangably with their XSD base types. 

Consider 5.5 as an example:

  5.5.  ObjectIdentifier

  This XSD datatype corresponds to the SMI "OBJECT IDENTIFIER"
  datatype.

  The XSD "string" datatype is also the natural choice to represent an
  ObjectIdentifier as XML output, for the same reasons as for the
  IpAddress choice.

I did a lot of flipping back and forth between sections to sort this out.  It might be
clearer to say something like

  5.5.  ObjectIdentifier

  The XSD datatype "ObjectIdentifier" corresponds to the SMI "OBJECT IDENTIFIER"
  datatype.

  "Objectidentifier" has the XSD base type "string", which is the natural choice to
  represent an ObjectIdentifier as XML output, for the same reasons as for the
  IpAddress choice.


(2) Security Considerations nit

s/are likely to be relevant/will be relevant/

[Ballot discuss]
1) RFC3584 is a BCP. Is a stds-track document allowed to normatively reference a BCP?
2) I chaired the BOF, was involved in the development of an earlier version of this draft by a co-worker, guided the authors in technical requirements, and helped respond to early political opposition to the draft. Is this a draft for which I should recuse myself?

[Ballot comment]
I have two comments wrt to this ID:

1) In the security considerations it says:

  "Security considerations for any given SMI MIB module are
  likely to be relevant to any XSD/XML mapping of that MIB module"

Shouldn't the phrase "likely to be" be removed?  When is it not relevant?

2) Is there any reason we can't refer to a later version of the ASN.1?  I.e., instead of '87 point to '02?

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in
the XML registry.

1. In the "ns" section located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html, add the following record:

ID = opsawg:smi:base:1.0
URI = urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:opsawg:smi:base:1.0
Registration template =
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:opsawg:smi:base:1.0

Registration Contact: The IESG.

XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
Reference = [RFC-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-05]

2. In the "shema" section located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html, add the following record:

ID = opsawg:smi:base:1.0
URI = urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:opsawg:smi:base:1.0
Filename = opsawg/smi-base-1.0.xsd
(the content of this file is copied from Section 4, between the "BEGIN" and
"END" lines, not including those)
Reference = [RFC-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-05]

draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-05.txt
as a proposed standard

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?

Scott Bradner

Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

yes & yes

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members?

yes

Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

no

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

no

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it.

no

In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

n/a

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

good discussion and support for publishing this document

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?

no

If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

n/a

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

n/a

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

yes

Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state?

no
If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

n/a

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

yes

If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226].

n/a
If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
n/a

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?
the author checked the syntax with XMLPad 3.0.2.0

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
This memo defines the IETF standard expression of Structure of Management
Information (SMI) base datatypes in Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema
Definition (XSD) language. The primary objective of this memo is to enable the
production of XML documents that are as faithful to the SMI as possible, using XSD
as the validation mechanism.

Working Group Summary
The WG reviewed and discussed this ID & it was updated a number of times.

Document Quality
Parts of the schema have been implemented and multiple vendors are expected to
fully implement it after it is published as a RFC.