Here are my comments on the document.
Section 1:
"The current Bridge WG documents are" -> "The current Bridge WG documents
are:"
" This document is meant to establish some clear expectations between
IETF and IEEE about the transition of Bridge WG MIB modules to the
IEEE 802.1 WG, so that the plan can be reviewed by the IESG, IAB,
IETF, and IEEE. There might be some case-by-case situations that
arise, but this document describes the general strategy."
Presumably, the IESG & IAB review has already occurred, no? Are we
requesting that the document be explicitly reviewed and signed off by
the IEEE 802 ExComm? How will the case-by-case situations will be handled?
I'm not clear what happens when/if an issue arises.
Section 2.2
" The WG has started making the MIB module portion of
their documents available as separate ASCII files during project
development, and allowing IETF personnel to access these documents
for review purposes."
Is this only MIBs under development? Aren't the final MIBs also
made available as separate ASCII files without requiring a password?
Or does this only happen for a selected subset?
" The 2001 version of the SMIv2 MIB module for 802.1X (the IEEE8021-
PAE-MIB) has been published in ASCII on
http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/MIBS.html. This document should be
updated with enough surrounding documentation to be clear, and to
address deployment issues such as security considerations."
Since 802.1X-2001 has been superceded by 802.1X-2004, it seems unlikely
that this work would get done. Since the 802.1X-2004 MIB is also
available, maybe this paragraph should be revised to refer to that.
Section 3.1
"RFC1286, RFC1493 and RFC 1525 apparently precede any specific IETF"
Note inconsistent spacing.
Section 4
"The Bridge WG has completed its documents, and the WG has been closed,"
-> "The Bridge WG has completed its documents, and the WG has been
closed."
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf