Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:44:06 +0100

I see your point about the changes to the MODULE-IDENTITY.  I agree
that we should back out these changes.

Are there any guidelines on the Full Copyright statement that should
be applied to this document, which re-publishes an external document.
I should probably ask the IEEE 802.1 WG chair for suitable text.

I have re-checked the id-guidelines at www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html and I
agree that the boilerplate should read:

         This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to
         all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the
         right to produce derivative works is not granted.

I believe the change log section actually is correct in what it says,
it summarises the changes from draft -00 to draft -02.  Perhaps what
it should have done is separately list the changes from -00 to -01
and then from -01 to -02.  I agree that it should have a note to the
RFC Editor to remove this section before publication.

I agree with all of your other comments.

Les...

"C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 29/07/2003 07:02:28

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
> Bridge MIB Working Group of the IETF.
>
>    Title          : Definitions for Port Access Control (IEEE
>                           802.1X) MIB
>    Author(s) : K. Norseth
>    Filename  : draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
>    Pages          : 42
>    Date      : 2003-7-25
>
[ ... ]
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt

Greetings,

I have three major comments on this draft and few minor ones.

MAJOR COMMENT: I see that in going from the -01 to the -02 draft the
following changes were made to the MODULE-IDENTITY invocation in the
IEEE8021-PAE-MIB:

*** 22,34 ****
--- 22,52 ----
   ieee8021paeMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
     LAST-UPDATED "200101160000Z"
     ORGANIZATION "IEEE 802.1 Working Group"
     CONTACT-INFO
        "http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/1/index.html"
+
+     ORGANIZATION "IETF Bridge MIB Working Group"
+     CONTACT-INFO
+         "Email: [email-masked]"
+
+                  K.C. Norseth
+                  L-3 Communications
+             Tel: +1 801-594-2809
+           Email: [email-masked]
+          Postal: 640 N. 2200 West.
+                  Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0850
+
+          Send comments to <[email-masked]>
+
     DESCRIPTION
        "The Port Access Entity module for managing IEEE
        802.1X."
+
+         "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This version of
+          this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for
+          full legal notices."

   --    ::= { iso(1) std(0) iso8802(8802) ieee802dot1(1)
   --          ieee802dot1mibs(1) 1 }
   ::= { iso std(0) iso8802(8802) ieee802dot1(1) ieee802dot1mibs(1) 1 }

I believe that these changes (i.e., the added lines marked above
with '+') should be backed out.  For one thing, the MIB module won't
compile when they are present.  For another, this MIB module is NOT
an IETF MIB module.  It is an IEEE MIB module, as the draft
explicitly says.  Therefore, the IEEE 802.1 WG should remain listed
as the ORGANIZATION and its web site should be listed in the
CONTACT-INFO.  Also, since the IEEE owns the copyright, not the
IETF, it seems wrong to insert the standard ISOC MIB copyright here.

MAJOR COMMENT:  since this draft is republishing an IEEE standard,
it the Full Copyright Statement language needs to reflect this fact.
The IETF does not own the copyright and does not have change
control, but the Full Copyright Statement (which is a verbatim copy
of the one in Section 10 of RFC 2026) says otherwise.  This needs to
be fixed.  Note that the version of the Full Copyright Statement
that is in RFC 2026 is intended for standards-track documents, not
for informational republication of standards from other SDOs.

MAJOR COMMENT:  the I-D boilerplate should probably have the "except
the right to make derivative works" language, since the MIB module
is an IEEE standard and change control is not being ceded to the
IETF.

MINOR COMMENT:  in the Abstract, s/SNMPv2 SMI/SMIv2/

MINOR COMMENT:  since this version of the MIB module has some
updates from the IEEE original in order to correct some MIB
compilation errors, it might be a good idea to add a
REVISION/DESCRIPTION pair and also to change the LAST-UPDATED clause
to match the new REVISION clause. The verbiage at the beginning of
Section 4 claims that this stuff is present, but it is not.  It
might also be a good idea to suggest to the IEEE to post the
corrected MIB module on their web site (that would also have the
salutary effect of making the ASN.1 comment at the front of the MIB
module with the URL less misleading).

MINOR COMMENT:  the ASN.1 comment that shows the original
(incorrect) form for the OID assigned to ieee8021paeMIB is not
helpful and should be removed (in general, broken stuff should be
removed, not commented out, and the changes should be documented in
a REVISION/DESCRIPTION pair).

MINOR COMMENT:  in the DESCRIPTION clause of
dot1xAuthBackendNonNakResponsesFromSupplicant
s/Authenticators/Authenticator's/ (the apostrophe was apparently
deleted when the non-ascii quotes in the original were converted to
ascii).

MINOR COMMENT:  the change log section is broken.  It records the
-00 to -01 changes but says otherwise.  Also, there should be a
note to the RFC Editor indicating that the section is to be
removed prior to publication as an RFC.

Regards,

Mike Heard

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

_______________________________________________
Bridge-mib mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib

---

From: "Les Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:07:42 +0100

The changes to the MIB for IEEE 802.1aa include the corrections in
draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt.

There are also some other significant changes to be done for 802.1aa, due to
recent changes in the state machines and the managed objects that reflect this.
This work is not complete yet

Les....

"C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 30/07/2003 20:30:07

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> An alternative option might be to publish the RFC without the MIB
> module and just include a pointer to the inline MIB module at the
> IEEE web site.

Actually, I rather like that idea.  It certainly ensures that the
stuff in the information RFC can't get out-of-sync with the IEEE's
official version.  The only problem with that

http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/MIBs/802-1x-2001-mib.txt

has some problems that make it fail to compile (an illegal expression
for the OID assigned as the MODULE-IDENTITY value, non-ascii quotes,
and the absence of dot1xPaePortReauthenticate and
dot1xAuthSessionUserName from conformance groups).  The version in
the -01 draft corrected these problems.

I see that the IEEE is in fact working on a maintenance release of
802.1X (see http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1aa.html, or look for
the 802.1aa link under http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/1/), and
one of the work items is a MIB module update.  However, this is in
the private area and I don't know whether it includes the
corrections mentioned above (nor how else it might differ from the
current published version of the IEEE8021-PAE-MIB).

Maybe someone from 802.1aa could comment?

//cmh