Thanks for review and comments. Inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 14:05 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; STDS-802-1-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: David Harrington (E-mail) > Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to > IEEE 802.1 WG' to Informational RFC > > > Please find below my Last Call comments to this document. I believe that > the document is close to completion, but there still are a number of > rather consistent edits that I would rather see dealt in a > new version. > That is fine. We have it on IESG agenda for this Thursday. We'll see if IESG also has comments, and then hopefully Dave Harrington can do a new rev during IETF week. > As the document includes quite extensive discussions of IPR transfer > issues, I suggest that we ensure that the text is read and > agreed by the IETF and IEEE 802 IPR lawyers. > In IETF we call it "Legal Counsel on IPR matters". > > Content: > > 1. I do not believe that this type of document should include key words > usage as per RFC 2119. For example in section 2.1, paragraph 4 > 2. last paragraph in 2.1 - sounds like the IETF should forbid > contributors to publish MIB modules documents as Internet-Drafts. I do > not believe that this is the intent, or even possible, so I would > suggest to change the text: > s/and to not publish their proposed MIB modules/and to recommend them > not to publish their proposed MIB modules/ > 3. It looks to me like all section 2.4 relates to IEEE participation > procedures, is not part of the transition process and is > something where > the IETF has no real saying. I suggest to eliminate this section > 4. Section 3.1 should refer to section 7 for more information > concerning > the transfer of intellectual property rights of the current Bridge MIB > WG documents. Also, in the third paragraph it should be made > clear that > the transfer is not only for 'maintenance responsibilities' > but also for > 'performing derivative work'. > 5. I believe that the document could provide more specific > recommendations about how IEEE 802 MIB review guidelines could be > derived, and what of RFC 4181 can be used until such a > document is being > issued by the IEEE, which can take quite a long time. I > suggest that the > following text is introduced replacing the 6th paragraph in > Section 6.1: > > The IETF uses [RFC4181] as a reference document for IETF documents > containing MIB modules. It is recommended that in time IEEE 802.1 WG > develop their own guidelines for IEEE MIB modules review. Until this > happens Section 3 (General Documentation > Guidelines) and Section 4 (SMIv2 Guidelines) in the current IETF > document can be used with the following exceptions and modifications: > > - In the introductory paragraphs of Section 3, the list of sections > that MUST be included in a MIB document should be adapted to the IEEE > needs and style guide. . > - Sections 3.1 to 3.4 apply as in the IETF document, with the mention > that the IETF boilerplate could be edited to comply to the IEEE needs > and style guide > - Section 3.5 (IANA Considerations Section) does not apply, but may be > replaced by a section with IEEE recommendations on naming and > OID space > assignments > - Sections 3.6 does not apply > - Section 3.7 (Copyright notices) does not apply and may be > replace with > text corresponding to the IEEE copyright rules. The exception is the > case where a document was originally issues by the IETF, and > then taken > over by the IEEE, in which case, according to the legal advice notices > concerning the IETF copyrights (as described in the current section > 3.7) > and IEEE copyrights MUST be included [editor note - to finalize after > legal advice is received from IEEE and IETF lawyers] s/IETF lawyers/IETF legal Counsel/ > - Section 3.8 (Intellectual Property) does not apply and may > be replaced > with a notice reflecting the intellectual property rules of the IEEE > - Sections 4.1 and 4.2 apply as in the IETF document > - Section 4.3 (Naming Hierarchy) applies with changes related > to the OID > root of the IEEE 802.1 MIB modules > - Sections 4.4 to 4.8 apply as in the IETF document > - Section 4.9 applies, but some interesting problems may arise if IETF > designed modules are being taken over and continued by the IEEE. In > order to comply to the requirement the IEEE should continue > to work and > maintain the MIB module in the IETF OID space. > > > Editorial: > > 1. Section 1.1, third paragraph: s/(like 802)/(like IEEE 802)/ > 2. Section 2.1, first paragraph: s/equivalent of an IETF Working Group > Charter/equivalent of the IETF Working Group Charters/ > 3. Section 2.2, first paragraph: s/to develop MIB modules in the PDF > format/to publish MIB modules only in the PDF format/ > 4. Section 2.2, second paragraph: s/IETF personnel/IETF participants/ > 5. Section 2.2. third paragraph: s/completion/approval/; > s/completed/approved/ > 6. The list in Section 3.2, third paragraph should be dashed > 7. Section 3.3, paragraph 5, line 2: s/variable/variables/ > 8. Section 3.3, paragraph 6: s/802 variables/IEEE 802.1 variables/ > 9. I believe that Sections 2.3 (OID Registration for new MIB modules) > and 3.4 (IANA OID Registration) can and should be merged. Some of the > text in 3.4 seems more a justification and could be eliminated > 10. In many places in the document, including the title the > name Bridge > WG is being used. Actually the official name of the WG was Bridge MIB > WG, while the acronym was bridge (not with capital letter). I > suggest a > global s/Bridge WG/Bridge MIB WG/ > 11. Section 6.1, first paragraph: s/IEEE 802 area/IEEE 802 > project/ and > s/802 developped MIB modules/IEEE 802 developped MIB modules/ > 12. Section 6.1, second paragraph: s/802 developped MIB modules/IEEE > 802 developped MIB modules/ and s/It is not formalized/This is not as > formalized/ > 13. Section 10, last paragraph s/Jorge/The IETF lawyer/ > Nope, instead: s/Jorge/The IETF legal counsel/ Bert > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:16 PM > > To: IETF-Announce > > Subject: Last Call: 'Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge > > WG to IEEE 802.1 WG' to Informational RFC > > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter > > to consider the following document: > > > > - 'Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge WG to IEEE 802.1 WG ' > > <draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt> as an > > Informational RFC > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > > solicits final comments on this action. Please send any > > comments to the iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists > > by 2006-03-17. > > > > The file can be obtained via > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harrington-8021-mib- > > transition-01.txt > > > > This document describes the plan to transition responsibility for > > bridging-related MIB modules from the IETF Bridge WG to the IEEE > > 802.1 WG, which develops the bridging technology the MIB > > modules are > > designed to manage. > > > > This is not a WG document, but has been discussed quite > > extensively already. The document is intended as > > Informational RFC. Therefor a > > 2 week IETF Last Call is being used for IETF community-wide review. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IETF-Announce mailing list > > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf