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

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Tue, 04 November 2003 15:25 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18310 for <bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:25:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AH33G-0003A8-7x for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:25:02 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA4FP2Be012153 for bridge-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:25:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AH33F-00039m-ER; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:25:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AH32M-00038P-DF for bridge-mib@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:24:07 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18259 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:23:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AH32K-0006tc-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:24:04 -0500
Received: from auemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.223.161] helo=auemail1.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AH32J-0006tP-00 for bridge-mib@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:24:03 -0500
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail1.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hA4FNTN24187 for <bridge-mib@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:23:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <W1PMJPRN>; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:23:27 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15502D94F94@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "K.C. Norseth" <kcn@norseth.com>, Les Bell <Les_Bell@eur.3com.com>, "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, Kenyon C Norseth <kenyon.c.norseth@L-3com.com>
Subject: RE: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03p.txt
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:23:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bridge-mib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <bridge-mib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge-mib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib>, <mailto:bridge-mib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

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:kcn@norseth.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 september 2003 6:39
> To: Les Bell; C. M. Heard
> Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org; 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
Bridge-mib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib