Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:00:02 +0000

I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Document: draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition-01.txt
Intended Status: Informational
Shepherding AD: Bert Wijnen
Review Trigger: IETF Last call Ends 17 March/IESG Telechat 16 March 2006

Summary: This is more of a legal document than a technical one: Since 
both executive parties are authors I assume they are happy with the 
arrangements.  If the MIB doctors are happy with their ongoing role and 
given that I understand a legal eye has been cast over it, I think it is 
pretty much ready.  I found a few editorial nits listed below.

Editorial nits:
global: page header: s/8021/802.1/

s1.1:
>  While the
>    IESG does not mandate that other standards development organizations
>    (SDOs) do so, if such work comes into the IETF, then we want the
>    other SDO to bring in subject matter expertise to work with us, or,
>    even better, to take the lead themselves.
This piece at first read seem to imply that the IESG could mandate 
something in the other SDO's sphere - clearly a no-no.  That isn't 
actually what it say, but rewording would prevent any misunderstanding.  
Something using 'prefer' or 'encourage' would suit I think.

s2.1, next to last para:
> it
>    is RECOMMENDED that IEEE 802.1 WG PARs include explicit wording in
>    the scope section wherever there is need for MIB development as part
>    of the standard.
I am not sure that we can use RFC2119 language about other SDO's documents.
I think we have to confine ourselves to 'recommended' or 'suggested'.

However I think the next para we could do the reverse: 
s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/.  This is about our procedures.

s3.1: s/all its rights/the rights granted at the time of publication/
s3.2, para 3: this would be clearer with bullet points setting off the 
individual items

s3.3, para 6: s/primarily focus/primary focus/

s3.4, para 3: s/additional/addition/; s/.././ at end of para

s6.2, [para 4: Is mib-review-guidelines the same as RFC4181?.. if not it 
needs a reference or if so should be referred to as RFC4181.

s6.2: need to be consistent on usage of mib-review-guidelines vs 
review-guidelines vs review guidelines ...

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art