Sam Hartman wrote:
The title of this document is very confusing and should be revised to include the string textual convention. Seeing this last call announcement I was very puzzled why anyone thought it would be a good idea to hae a MIB for monitoring and managing all the URIs on a managed system. I was gratified to find that this is not what the document was about.
I strongly agree with the above comments. For the title I would recommend:
Textual Conventions for Representing Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
In the same vein, I would recommend URI-TC-MIB for the module name and uriTcMIB for the descriptor representing the MODULE-IDENTITY value. Note that these recommendations are consistent with the (non-binding) advice in Appendix C of RFC 4181 (the MIB review guidelines).
//cmh _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf