MIB Textual Conventions for Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-04

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

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

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

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.

(Brian Carpenter; 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) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

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.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection