Re: [Gen-art] IANA and AUTH48 (Was: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02)

On 3/21/16 8:39 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Obviously, an explicit RFC Editor note would solve the problem in the
> majority if not all the foreseeable cases. The burden is on the AD
> and to some extent to the IESG who should minute the decision as
> 'Approved. RFC Editor Note.' and maybe add 'IANA-related edit' in the
> minutes to make sure the issue is not forgotten (there may be
> multiple items in the RFC Editor notes).

To be clear though In general I'd vastly prefer to send a document to
the rfc editor that is correct. so holding for edits seems like the most
appropriate first order step.

> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko
>> [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:12
>> AM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); The IESG Cc: General Area Review Team;
>> draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp- new.all@tools.ietf.org 
>> Subject: IANA and AUTH48 (Was: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of
>> draft- ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02)
>> 
>> (Adding the IESG)
>> 
>> First, thanks for the review, Dan! I have balloted no-obj.
>> 
>> As for the question about IANA and AUTH48, I'm a bit conflicted
>> there. More checking is good, but I don't want to add more things
>> to do in AUTH48.
>> 
>> But I'd like to understand where the issue really was. I guess the
>> issue was that a discussion between the authors and IANA resulted
>> in doing the right thing, but no body remembered to bring the
>> update back to the I-D.
>> 
>> I don't know when this happened, but it could already have happened
>> while the document was in IESG processing.
>> 
>> This seems to be a more general problem, in that we often say
>> "we'll fix it in AUTH48", but don't actually edit docs or place RFC
>> Ed notes. I'd like to suggest that whenever we plan to do something
>> in AUTH48, at least an RFC Editor's note about the matter (not
>> necessarily the final edit) needs to be added to the tracker before
>> approval. This ensures that the RFC Editor would see the issue.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>> On 18 Jan 2016, at 11:54, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General
>>> Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being
>>> processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these
>>> comments just like any other last call comments.
>>> 
>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02.txt 
>>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 1/18/16 IETF LC End Date:
>>> 1/18/16 IESG Telechat date: (if known):
>>> 
>>> Summary:
>>> 
>>> Ready.
>>> 
>>> This document is an update that fixes a problem with RFC 7360
>>> where
>> MODULE-IDENTITY was defined as { snmpModules 235 } rather than {
>> mib-2 235 } as advised by the MIB Doctors and recommended by IANA.
>> The rest of the content is identical with RFC 7360.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Major issues:
>>> 
>>> There is a process issue that the IESG, IANA and the RFC Editor
>>> should
>> check (maybe they already did it) in order to avoid such situations
>> in the future. Is IANA involved in AUTH 48 last review of the
>> document? If they are not, maybe they should be. In this case the
>> MIB Doctors recommendation was implemented by IANA in the registry,
>> but the content of the document was not fixed, and nobody at AUTH
>> 48 discovered the problem.
>>> 
>>> Minor issues:
>>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing
>>> list Gen-art@ietf.org 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 
> 

Re: [Gen-art] IANA and AUTH48 (Was: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02)

Attachment: signature.asc