David, Ed,
After double-checking, David is right.
Regards, Benoit
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]
*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
