On 3/21/16 8:39 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > Obviously, an explicit RFC Editor note would solve the problem in the > majority if not all the foreseeable cases. The burden is on the AD > and to some extent to the IESG who should minute the decision as > 'Approved. RFC Editor Note.' and maybe add 'IANA-related edit' in the > minutes to make sure the issue is not forgotten (there may be > multiple items in the RFC Editor notes).
To be clear though In general I'd vastly prefer to send a document to the rfc editor that is correct. so holding for edits seems like the most appropriate first order step. > Regards, > > Dan > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko >> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:12 >> AM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); The IESG Cc: General Area Review Team; >> draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp- [email protected] >> Subject: IANA and AUTH48 (Was: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of >> draft- ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02) >> >> (Adding the IESG) >> >> First, thanks for the review, Dan! I have balloted no-obj. >> >> As for the question about IANA and AUTH48, I'm a bit conflicted >> there. More checking is good, but I don't want to add more things >> to do in AUTH48. >> >> But I'd like to understand where the issue really was. I guess the >> issue was that a discussion between the authors and IANA resulted >> in doing the right thing, but no body remembered to bring the >> update back to the I-D. >> >> I don't know when this happened, but it could already have happened >> while the document was in IESG processing. >> >> This seems to be a more general problem, in that we often say >> "we'll fix it in AUTH48", but don't actually edit docs or place RFC >> Ed notes. I'd like to suggest that whenever we plan to do something >> in AUTH48, at least an RFC Editor's note about the matter (not >> necessarily the final edit) needs to be added to the tracker before >> approval. This ensures that the RFC Editor would see the issue. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Jari >> >> On 18 Jan 2016, at 11:54, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General >>> Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being >>> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these >>> comments just like any other last call comments. >>> >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02.txt >>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 1/18/16 IETF LC End Date: >>> 1/18/16 IESG Telechat date: (if known): >>> >>> Summary: >>> >>> Ready. >>> >>> This document is an update that fixes a problem with RFC 7360 >>> where >> MODULE-IDENTITY was defined as { snmpModules 235 } rather than { >> mib-2 235 } as advised by the MIB Doctors and recommended by IANA. >> The rest of the content is identical with RFC 7360. >>> >>> >>> Major issues: >>> >>> There is a process issue that the IESG, IANA and the RFC Editor >>> should >> check (maybe they already did it) in order to avoid such situations >> in the future. Is IANA involved in AUTH 48 last review of the >> document? If they are not, maybe they should be. In this case the >> MIB Doctors recommendation was implemented by IANA in the registry, >> but the content of the document was not fixed, and nobody at AUTH >> 48 discovered the problem. >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing >>> list [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
