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

"Les Bell" <> Tue, 29 July 2003 09:45 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA17014 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hR2a-0004Uo-PG for; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:45:09 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6T9j8fe017278 for; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:45:08 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hR2T-0004US-DE; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:45:01 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hR25-0004Sj-LJ for; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:44:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA16991 for <>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hR22-0003o1-00 for; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:44:34 -0400
Received: from ([] by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hR21-0003ny-00 for; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:44:33 -0400
Received: from (toucana.EUR.3Com.COM []) by with ESMTP id h6T9jtkC019988; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:45:56 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (eurmta1.EUR.3Com.COM []) by with SMTP id h6T9kY225534; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:46:35 +0100 (BST)
Received: by SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (733.2 10-16-1998)) id 80256D72.00358B69 ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:44:50 +0100
X-Lotus-FromDomain: 3COM
From: "Les Bell" <>
To: "C. M. Heard" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:44:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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 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.


"C. M. Heard" <> on 29/07/2003 07:02:28

Sent by:

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

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 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:


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

*** 22,34 ****
--- 22,52 ----
     LAST-UPDATED "200101160000Z"
     ORGANIZATION "IEEE 802.1 Working Group"
+     ORGANIZATION "IETF Bridge MIB Working Group"
+         "Email:"
+                  K.C. Norseth
+                  L-3 Communications
+             Tel: +1 801-594-2809
+           Email:
+          Postal: 640 N. 2200 West.
+                  Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0850
+          Send comments to <>
        "The Port Access Entity module for managing IEEE
+         "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

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

s/Authenticators/Authenticator's/ (the apostrophe was apparently
deleted when the non-ascii quotes in the original were converted to

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.


Mike Heard

Bridge-mib mailing list

Bridge-mib mailing list