----- Original Message ----- From: "ietfdbh" <[email protected]> To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <[email protected]>; "'Edward Beili'" <[email protected]>; "'Benoit Claise'" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:15 PM
> Hi Dan, > > I see your point. > > I recommend asking the xml2rfc team to modify the xml2rfc directive. David I notice that the Last Call and the datatracker have got it right (Proposed Standard) despite what the Intended status says (Standards Track). I do not know how this is done, whether automatically from the write-up or from an independent action by the AD, but I would be careful about changing xml2rfc lest it upsets the part that works (even if I do not understand how it works:-) Tom Petch > > 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/shepherdw rite > 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 > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
