Hi Dan,
I see your point. I recommend asking the xml2rfc team to modify the xml2rfc directive. David Harrington <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] +1-603-828-1401 From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:10 AM To: ietfdbh; 'Edward Beili'; 'Benoit Claise' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis I am not sure. The IESG telechat can change the status, but the document needs to be clear about what the authors (based on the consensus of the WG ) are asking. In this case it does not matter, but for a document that obsoletes a previous RFC (as 5066bis originally was written) 'Standards Track' is ambiguous - do the authors intent to recycle at Proposed or do they plan to go to Internet Standard? As shepherd the text in the template did not provide me the option of 'Standards Track': (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? One way or the other, there seems to be a lack of sync between xml2rfc and the write-up template which should be corrected. Regards, Dan From: ietfdbh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 1:40 AM 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 <mailto:[email protected]> [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] 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]; 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]; 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/shepherdwrite up/), 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
