Subject: Re: IETF Last Call on draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:19:16 -0800 (PST)

Here are my comments on the document. 

Section 1:

"The current Bridge WG documents are" -> "The current Bridge WG documents 
are:"

"  This document is meant to establish some clear expectations between
   IETF and IEEE about the transition of Bridge WG MIB modules to the
   IEEE 802.1 WG, so that the plan can be reviewed by the IESG, IAB,
   IETF, and IEEE.  There might be some case-by-case situations that
   arise, but this document describes the general strategy."

Presumably, the IESG & IAB review has already occurred, no?  Are we 
requesting that the document be explicitly reviewed and signed off by 
the IEEE 802 ExComm? How will the case-by-case situations will be handled? 
I'm not clear what happens when/if an issue arises. 

Section 2.2

"  The WG has started making the MIB module portion of
   their documents available as separate ASCII files during project
   development, and allowing IETF personnel to access these documents
   for review purposes."

Is this only MIBs under development?  Aren't the final MIBs also
made available as separate ASCII files without requiring a password?
Or does this only happen for a selected subset? 

"   The 2001 version of the SMIv2 MIB module for 802.1X (the IEEE8021-
   PAE-MIB) has been published in ASCII on
   http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html.  This document should be
   updated with enough surrounding documentation to be clear, and to
   address deployment issues such as security considerations."

Since 802.1X-2001 has been superceded by 802.1X-2004, it seems unlikely
that this work would get done.  Since the 802.1X-2004 MIB is also
available, maybe this paragraph should be revised to refer to that. 

Section 3.1

"RFC1286, RFC1493 and RFC 1525 apparently precede any specific IETF"

Note inconsistent spacing. 

Section 4

"The Bridge WG has completed its documents, and the WG has been closed,"

-> "The Bridge WG has completed its documents, and the WG has been 
closed."

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:55:27 -0800

Bernard,

This comment isn't directed solely at you, but...
> Note inconsistent spacing. 

As a constituent, this is not what I want IAB (or IESG) members to spend
time on, nor is it something that reviewers need bring to the attention
of the entire organization.

Eliot

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:02:27 -0500

> of the entire organization.

As someone who reviews documents, I find that even though I am reviewing 
for content and not proofreading, I do sometimes notice things like this. 
Not pointing them out when I do would be silly.  Splitting the minor 
editorial issues into a separate list so they can be sent privately to the 
author _would_ be a waste of time.

I'd agree that there would have been no need for Bernard to send that 
comment alone to the entire IETF list.  But it was a small part of a much 
larger message which asked real, substantive questions, and which clearly 
_should_ have gone to a wider audience.

-- Jeff

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:07:08 -0800

> As someone who reviews documents, I find that even though I am
> reviewing for content and not proofreading, I do sometimes notice
> things like this. Not pointing them out when I do would be silly. 
> Splitting the minor editorial issues into a separate list so they can
> be sent privately to the author _would_ be a waste of time.
But it's not just your time that you're wasting, so I recommend
exercising self control and let the RFC editors do their job.  I'd
rather focus on the substantive portion of the draft unless the grammar
is so bad that you don't understand the substantive portion.

Eliot