A MIB Textual Convention for Language Tags
draft-mcwalter-langtag-mib-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Yes

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

1. Based on a LC comment from CE Whitehead, I suggest to replace in the DESCRIPTION clause of the LangTag TC 'This language tag' by 'The language tag described in this TC'.

2. I believe that the following comment from the MIB Doctor review of Juergen Schoenwaelder was not completly addressed:

'
   I note that the LanguageTag in RFC 2932 is 100 octets long while
   the new LanguageTag is 60 octets - so an update (in general not
   legal) is technically not possible. Furthermore, MIB modules may
   end up using different TCs with different sizes. This might
   practically not be an issue - but since the document talks about
   obsoleting IPMROUTE-STD-MIB, I would have expected some more
   discussion about this. Note that RFC 2932 LanguageTag is used by
   the MALLOC-MIB (RFC 3559) (and it is subtyped to 94 octets there,
   probably because it is used in an INDEX).'

Although now the text about RFC 2932 moved to Section 6, there is no text that warns the reader that some other documents may still use the LanguageTag TC defined in 2932.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

(Original comment resolved in discussion)

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

I believe the title of the document should make it much more clear
that this only defines textual conventions.