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
