Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03p.txt

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:23:25 +0100

Some comments that I may not have vented earlier.

- Abstract talks about "this standard" a few times.
  I think you mean "This IEEE 802.1X standard". Probably better
  to spell that out every time, otherwise people may read it
  as "this standard as specified in this document"
- last para in abstract. 
  s/This draft/This document/
  Reads much better once it becomes an RFC
- Did we discuss section 1 before?
  Why would we not make it in sync with the standard MIB boilerplate
  that we use these days? I believe Mike has made the same comments
- Mike has already commented on the REVISION and LAST-UPDATED dates,
  and how to document the various revisions. I agree with that, except
    REVISION     "200101160000Z"  -- Jan 16th, 2001
    DESCRIPTION  "The initial and authoritative version as published at:
  Why is that "older" version authoritative? It has bugs that we're
  fixing, does it not? Can we just keep it at "The initial version
  as piblished at:" ??
  With the current "authoritative", I would wonder what to do with this
  one, since it is not authoritative anyway?
- I wonder about section 11.
  Should we add a note to RFC-Editor to remove it when RFC gets published?
  I thinks we should!

Other than that, I support and agree with the comments made by Mike
on Sept 9th (and posted on the bridge wg list)

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K.C. Norseth [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 september 2003 6:39
> To: Les Bell; C. M. Heard
> Cc: [email-masked]; Kenyon C Norseth
> Subject: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03.txt
> 
> 
> Folks,  saved as draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03p.txt
> 
> Here is the latest proposed revision to draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03
> 
> I have added the changes we have been discussing about 
> copyright.  I have
> not added the page formatting on this revison yet.  I also 
> have not compiled
> it yet because I didn't have access to libsmi this weekend.
> 
> How is this?  Comments, suggestions?
> 
> K.C.
> 

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

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:04:38 -0800 (PST)

> on Sept 9th (and posted on the bridge wg list)

Actually, the -03 version that K.C. submitted just before the
blackout deadline addresses most of those comments.  The ones that
were not addressed were the questions of using standard boilerplate
or at least updating the old boilerplate with current references
(which Bert discussed) and of making RFC 1213 into a normative
reference (because of the requirements in Section 3.5).  This
version is not yet in the repository;  I saw it because I was cc'd
on some e-mail correspondence that contained it.

Mike

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:20:26 -0500

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-03.txt
	Pages		: 42
	Date		: 2003-11-19
	
This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based
internets. In particular, it defines objects for managing the
operation of Port Access Control, based on the specification
contained in Clause 8 and Clause 9 of the IEEE 802.1X standard. This
clause includes a MIB module that is SNMPv2 SMI compliant.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:32:50 -0800 (PST)

> on some e-mail correspondence that contained it.

I see that K.C.'s submission has now appeared in the repository.
Here are my detailed comments, which are basically just an expansion
of the above and some earlier comments from Bert:

1.) In the Abstract:  s/this draft/this document/ and
s/SNMPv2 SMI compliant/SMIv2-compliant/.

2.) In Section 1:  I recommend to replace this with the current
boilerplate at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html
(also mentioned in Bert's comments of Tue, 4 Nov 2003).

3.) In the MIB module revision description for the current version:

OLD:
                  The IETF Bridge-mib WG made the following changes:
NEW:
                  The IETF Bridge-mib WG made the following changes
                  in order to get the MIB module to compile:

4.) In the MIB MODULE revision description for the previous version:

OLD:
    DESCRIPTION  "The initial and authoritative version as published at:
NEW:
    DESCRIPTION  "The initial version as published at:

5.) In Section 7:  change the dates on [RFC2578], [RFC2579], and
[RFC2580] from May 1999 back to April 1999 (this seems to
have resulted from a global replace in this version).

6.) In Section 7:  add RFC 1213 as a normative reference.  That is
needed because of its mention in Section 3.5.

7.) In Sections 7 and 8:  move [RFC3410] from Section 7 to Section 8
since it is customary to list this as an informative reference.

8.) In Section 8:  eliminate [RFC1157], [RFC1212], [RFC1901],
[RFC1905], [RFC1906], [RFC2119], [RFC2570], [RFC2572], [RFC2574],
[RFC2573], and [RFC2575].  Of these, [RFC2119] is not needed because
there are no capitalized MUST, MAY, etc. keywords, and the rest are
obsolete and are not needed if the current boilerplate is used for
Section 1.

9.) Add an RFC Editor note that Section 11 is to be removed prior to
publication.

Bert had some additional comments in his message of 4 Nov.

Regards,

Mike Heard

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:20:33 -0800

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:32 AM
> Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03.txt
...
> needed because of its mention in Section 3.5.
...

It would be better to replace it with a reference to RFC 3418.

Randy

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:26:45 -0800 (PST)

> It would be better to replace it with a reference to RFC 3418.

I don't object, but I would like to point out that it's not as
simple as just changing the reference.  Section 3.5 be would also
need to be modified along the following lines:

OLD:
   It is assumed that a system implementing this MIB will also implement
   (at least) the system group defined in MIB-II defined in IETF RFC
   1213 and the interfaces group defined in IETF RFC 2863.
NEW:
   It is assumed that a system implementing this MIB will also implement
   (at least) the system group defined in MIB-II defined in IETF RFC
   3418 and the interfaces group defined in IETF RFC 2863.

Since RFC 3418 (actually RFC 1907) expanded the system group by
adding sysORLastChange, sysORID, sysORUpTime, and sysORDescr to the
RFC 1213 objects sysDescr, sysObjectID, sysUpTime, sysContact,
sysName, sysLocation, and sysServices, this would not be a purely
editorial change and therefore should be vetted by the IEEE.

Mike