I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Document: draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt
Intended Status: Informational
Shepherding AD: Bert Wijnen
Review Trigger: IETF Last call Ends 17 March/IESG Telechat 16 March 2006
Summary: This is more of a legal document than a technical one: Since
both executive parties are authors I assume they are happy with the
arrangements. If the MIB doctors are happy with their ongoing role and
given that I understand a legal eye has been cast over it, I think it is
pretty much ready. I found a few editorial nits listed below.
Editorial nits:
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 ...
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
