Ed, all,
First of all, as mentioned by Dan Romascanu in his write-up
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis/shepherdwriteup/),
please correct this:
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
Proposed Standard. The header mentions incorrectly 'Standards Track'
- this needs to be changed
Below is my AD review.
1.
OLD:
In 2011, the IEEE developed IEEE8023-EFM-CU-
MIB module, based on the original EFM-CU-MIB module. The current
revision of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB is defined in IEEE Std 802.3.1-2013
[802.3.1
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-05#ref-802.3.1>].
NEW
In 2011, the IEEE developed IEEE8023-EFM-CU-
MIB module, based on the original EFM-CU-MIB module [RFC5066]. The current
revision of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB, is defined in IEEE Std 802.3.1-2013
[802.3.1
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-05#ref-802.3.1>].
2.
All further development of the EFM Copper Interfaces MIB will be done
by the IEEE 802.3 working group in the IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module.
Requests and comments pertaining to EFM Copper Interfaces MIB SHOULD
be sent to the IEEE 803.3 working group. Currently, the mailing list
of the IEEE 802.3.1 task force, chartered with MIB development, is
[[email protected]].
"SHOULD" is to be replaced by "should"
Justification: RFC 2119 section 6
Ed, how quickly can you produce a new version?
Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
