Hi Ed, Please issue the next version of the draft - I would like to enter my Sponsor Ballot comment in the next couple of days.
Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:00 PM > To: Edward Beili; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt > > 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
