Benoit, Dan, I just posted the new versions with the following changes: 1. Modified according to the AD review comments from Benoit.
2. Changed the references names to start with a letter instead of a number, i.e. instead of [802.3] and [802.3.1] use [IEEE802.3] and [IEEE802.3.1], due to complaints from the newest version of xml2rfc, which has stricter checking of the xml. Also added a <date/> tag in the xml to appease xml2rfc. 3. Changed reference to 802.3 MIB Email reflector, using [LIST802.3.1] instead of [[email protected]], since xml2rfc was complaining about the @ character, besides the [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> address is really not the mailing list address, but rather the address of the list owner, used only for (un)subscription. The relevant paragraph now looks as follows: OLD> 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]]. NEW> 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 802.3.1 task force, currently chartered with MIB development, via its mailing list [LIST802.3.1]. 4. The "Intended Status" still says "Standards Track" in the draft, as per the comment from David. I also looked at my previous RFCs - the Intended Status was always changed during publication, not by the author. Regards, -E. From: ietfdbh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 01:40 To: Edward Beili; 'Benoit Claise'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis I am of the impression that "standards track" is appropriate in the internet draft. The IESG telechat is used to tune this finer, and the RFC gets the appropriate status level. This hasn't changed, has it? David Harrington [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> +1-603-828-1401 From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Beili Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 5:39 PM To: Benoit Claise; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis Dan, Benoit, I'm having a little difficulty with the header, namely changing "Indented Status" from "Standards Track" to "Proposed Standard". I'm using xml2rfc, which automatically converts <rfc category="std" ...> to: Intended status: Standards Track I don't see a way to change that in the xml, except for fixing it manually in the final .txt file, after xml2rfc conversion. Am I missing something in the xml? Regards, -E. From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 00:30 To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Edward Beili Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis Hi, The write-up has been updated. Regards, Benoit I agree with Ed's comment about the updated security considerations section. Regards, Dan From: Edward Beili [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 10:24 PM To: Benoit Claise Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Subject: RE: AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis Benoit, I'll submit the new version in a couple of hours. There's one thing I would like you to consider for adding to the Technical or Workgroup summary: This document provides an updated security considerations section for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB Regards, -E. From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 19:21 To: Edward Beili Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Subject: AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis 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]<mailto:[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
