Hi Ed, > 3. You probably meant "No action is required from IANA ..."
Of course, thanks for catching this. > 4. Shall I wait for other comments or should I just issue the next > version of the draft? > Let us wait for a couple of days. Hopefully we will get an answer from Howard concerning a better reference for the IEEE 802.3.1a Rev 2 draft, and maybe other comments from the OPSAWG or the IEEE folks. Please issue a revised version by the start of the next week, as I plan to enter my Sponsor Ballot comment on the IEEE document, and I need a reference to the best IETF I-D available at that moment. Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:55 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt > > Dan, > Thank you for the comments, I agree with everything, except for the > following: > > 2. I will leave the IEEE 803.2.1-2011 reference for now, until IEEE > 802.3 would provide a publically accessible link. > > 3. You probably meant "No action is required from IANA ..." instead of > "New action is required form IANA ...", i.e. the correct paragraph would > be: > > OLD: > > Object identifier 166 for the ifCapStackMIB MODULE-IDENTITY have been > allocated by IANA in the MIB-2 sub-tree. > > NEW: > > No action is required from IANA as the OID for ifCapStackMIB MODULE- > IDENTITY > was already allocated in [RFC5066]. > > 4. Shall I wait for other comments or should I just issue the next > version of the draft? > > Regards, > -E. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 17:59 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [OPSAWG] comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt > > > Thanks to Ed Beili for undertaking this work. > > A few comments: > > 1. In the Abstract you are making the statement that this specification > moves the EFM-CU-MIB module to an IEEE document. In fact the IETF does > not have the rights to do such a move alone, this document should rather > just recognize this move. > > Suggested change: > > OLD: > > It amends that specification by moving the entire EFM-CU- > MIB module along with the relevant descriptive text, to a separate > document, maintained by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics > Engineers (IEEE) 802.3.1 working group. > > NEW: > > It amends that specification by taking out the entire EFM-CU- > MIB module along with the relevant descriptive text. That MIB module > will be part of a separate document, maintained by the Institute of > Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group. > > Also in Section 1: > > OLD: > > This > version moves the entire EFM-CU-MIB module along with the relevant > descriptive text, to a separate document, maintained by the Institute > of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3.1 working group. > > NEW: > > This version > removes the entire EFM-CU-MIB module along with the relevant > descriptive > text. That MIB module will be part of a separate document, maintained > by > the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.3. > working group. > > 2. In Section 3.1: > > The EFM-CU-MIB module defined in the previous version of this > document, along with the relevant descriptive text, is now moved to a > separate, IEEE maintained document, IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011 [802.3.1], > which also renamed the EFM-CU-MIB to IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB. > > - Instead of 'the previous version of this document' we should just say > [RFC5066]. > - We should provide a more updated version of the IEEE standard which > contains the IEEE-EFM-CU-MIB - the document now in Sponsor Ballot would > be fine, but the access is restricted. I suggest to ask advice from > Howard Frazier. > > 3. I suggest that Section 7 mentions that no (new) IANA actions are > required because it's the same root already allocated in RFC 5066. > > OLD: > > Object identifier 166 for the ifCapStackMIB MODULE-IDENTITY have been > allocated by IANA in the MIB-2 sub-tree. > > NEW: > > New action is required from IANA as the OID for ifCapStackMIB MODULE- > IDENTITY > was already allocated in [RFC5066]. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
