Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG
RFC 4663

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

(Bert Wijnen) (was Yes) Discuss

Discuss (2006-03-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
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

(Brian Carpenter) (was No Objection) Yes

Comment (2006-03-15)
No email
send info
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/


>  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 ...

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

Comment (2006-06-06)
No email
send info
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.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection