Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG
draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-03

[Ballot comment]
1. Section 5.2 refers to text relative to the text relative to the Internet Management Framework which is part of the standard boilerplate for IETF MIB documents, and recommends that the text be included in future MIB documents edited by the IEEE 802.1 WG. It is not clear where the refered text ends. I suggest that the respective two paragraphs are inserted between quotation marks, to avoid any unclarity.

2. idnits complains about the references included in the text mentioned above. I suggest that these references are added as Informative References.

[Note]: 'Legal Counsel review received and the current version includes the changes following this review that should allow clearing Bert Wijnen''s DISCUSS.' added by Dan Romascanu

5/31/06 - two comments following a discussion between Jorge and Brian:

Jorge told me two things:

1. He doesn't insist on removing "according to legal advice" - he didn't see what it adds, but has no problem with it staying in.

2. He suggests adding "unless otherwise agreed by the document authors"
to give extra flexibility (given that the authors continue to own the underlying copyright in any case). But if we don't want to add that flexibility, he certainly doesn't insist.

Here is Jorge's feedback:


Overall this document looks good.  I only have a few specific comments, which you should feel free to pass along to Dan:

Page 11, note regarding Section 3.7, delete "according to the legal advice" and replace with "unless otherwise agreed by the document author"

Page 15 (Sec. 9)

  Paragraph 2, line 1:  Insert "license" after "non-exclusive copyright"

  Paragraph 3, line 3:  Insert "notice" after "ISOC copyright"

  Paragraph 6 -- I would delete this paragraph, as it is not relevant to the disposition of the 802 MIBs and was just a comment about an evolving discussion in the IPR-WG.

Following inputto draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-02.txt was received from the IESG Legal Counsel:

Overall this document looks good.  I only have a few specific comments, which you should feel free to pass along to Dan:

Page 11, note regarding Section 3.7, delete "according to the legal advice" and replace with "unless otherwise agreed by the document author"

Page 15 (Sec. 9)

  Paragraph 2, line 1:  Insert "license" after "non-exclusive copyright"

  Paragraph 3, line 3:  Insert "notice" after "ISOC copyright"

  Paragraph 6 -- I would delete this paragraph, as it is not relevant to the disposition of the 802 MIBs and was just a comment about an evolving discussion in the IPR-WG.

[Ballot discuss]
Taking a DISCUSS to ensure that
- IETF Last Call can end (17th of March)
- Editor/author can do a new rev to address all the
  editorial comments.
- allow IETF Legal Counsel to review final document

[Ballot comment]
There are a few editorial nits that it would be good to clear up during editing.
From Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies:


global: page header: s/8021/802.1/

s1.1:

>  While the
>    IESG does not mandate that other standards development organizations
>    (SDOs) do so, if such work comes into the IETF, then we want the
>    other SDO to bring in subject matter expertise to work with us, or,
>    even better, to take the lead themselves.

This piece at first read seem to imply that the IESG could mandate something in the other SDO's sphere - clearly a no-no.  That isn't actually what it say, but rewording would prevent any misunderstanding.  Something using 'prefer' or 'encourage' would suit I think.


s2.1, next to last para:

> it
>    is RECOMMENDED that IEEE 802.1 WG PARs include explicit wording in
>    the scope section wherever there is need for MIB development as part
>    of the standard.

I am not sure that we can use RFC2119 language about other SDO's documents.
I think we have to confine ourselves to 'recommended' or 'suggested'.

However I think the next para we could do the reverse: s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/.  This is about our procedures.

s3.1: s/all its rights/the rights granted at the time of publication/
s3.2, para 3: this would be clearer with bullet points setting off the individual items

s3.3, para 6: s/primarily focus/primary focus/

s3.4, para 3: s/additional/addition/; s/.././ at end of para

s6.2, [para 4: Is mib-review-guidelines the same as RFC4181?.. if not it needs a reference or if so should be referred to as RFC4181.

s6.2: need to be consistent on usage of mib-review-guidelines vs review-guidelines vs review guidelines ...

[Note]: 'IETF Last Call ends on March 17th.
Some IETF Last Call comments (mainly editorial) have been received.
I''d like to see IESG comments as well, so we can do one more revision during IETF week and then hopefully be done with this one.' added by Bert Wijnen