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

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) (was Yes) 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

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes

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 ...

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes

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.

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection

(Bill Fenner; 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

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection