----- Original Message ----- From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Tom.Petch'" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'ietf'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:10 AM Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A Template > > Yup. > Trying to figure out how to publish this in an internet-draft has been > challenging to say the least. > (publishing the xml2rfc template in an xml2rfc document is even more > challenging!) > The template, in both text and xml2rfc format, has been available on > the OPS website since July. > > Thanks for the suggestion of using an appendix; I'll consider that > possibility. > I think that the reference to the web site should be in the I-D/RFC; I had not thought of looking for it there. I think too that we need to make MIB documents easier to produce and so better and that this is along the right lines but that, like RFC4181, it does not quite do it. My thinking is that the editor of such a document wants to see - what they might come up with - how to do it and - why. The how is the XML and belongs on a web site (and could also make a good appendix) but where I most want to change this I-D is the separation of what the end result is from the why, so my proposed appendix would have a section of eg IANA considerations showing the possible end result as submitted to the RFC Editor while the main body has an equivalently numbered section which discusses the rooting of the MIB module in mib-2 or transmission or elsewhere with reference to RFC4181 for the more abstruse ideas.. Ditto other sections. Tom Petch > dbh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom.Petch [mailto:sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:14 AM > > To: ietf > > Subject: Re: Last Call: > > draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template (A Template > > > > I think that the idea behind this draft is a good one but > > that the choice of > > technology is wrong. > > > > The template should be on a web site available for download > > and that the way to > > get it there is the same as is used eg to get SMI TCs on to a > > website, namely > > publish it as an appendix to an RFC, so the body of the RFC > > is a proper RFC, > > formatted as usual, with the usual genuine comments to the > > RFC Editor, IANA etc > > and the appendix is then labelled 'do not touch' as far as > > RFC Editor, IANA etc > > are concerned and provides the material which will be loaded > > on to the website. > > > > The Appendix would benefit from a convention so show that the > > sections therein > > are at a second level, eg a marking or escape character > > before each section > > head, which is removed when the Appendix is placed on to the web > site. > > > > The current approach of interleaving what will appear in the > > template, comments > > thereon and the normal RFC material is likely to confuse all > > who come after. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf