[MIB-DOCTORS] Fwd: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01
Johannes Merkle <johannes.merkle@secunet.com> Fri, 29 January 2016 09:52 UTC
Return-Path: <Johannes.Merkle@secunet.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3DD1AC423 for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 01:52:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y285z9emSyaV for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 01:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a.mx.secunet.com (a.mx.secunet.com [195.81.216.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65EA1A1A6F for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 01:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (alg1 [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846271A011D for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:52:35 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet
Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id LqOrcxXy3qad for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:52:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-essen-01.secunet.de (unknown [10.53.40.204]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3B31A0112 for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:52:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.208.1.99] (10.208.1.99) by mail-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.266.1; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:52:32 +0100
References: <C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB896686AE@SZXEMA509-MBS.china.huawei.com>
To: mib-doctors@ietf.org
From: Johannes Merkle <johannes.merkle@secunet.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB896686AE@SZXEMA509-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Message-ID: <56AB3675.1080800@secunet.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:52:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C9B5F12337F6F841B35C404CF0554ACB896686AE@SZXEMA509-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.208.1.99]
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/yFvgs7AFjsa_OGU8NlfBkSc5Ns4>
Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fwd: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mib-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:52:41 -0000
obviously, the text in the standard boilerplate for IETF MIB documents is flawed and should be changed. See the review of our ID for details. Johannes -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01 Datum: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 06:22:56 +0000 Von: Liushucheng (Will) <liushucheng@huawei.com> An: ops-dir@ietf.org <ops-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new.all@ietf.org> ** Editorial ** * Section 2, page 3: > This memo specifies a MIB > module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, > RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 > [RFC2580]. This sentence should be rewritten like: This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, [RFC2578], [RFC2579] [RFC2580]. Note: STD58 is repeated multiple times (the author may consider to refer to it by RFC number, rather than by STD number?). In addition, you don't need to include the RFC number in "prose" and then add the reference (just add the reference) since the reference conveys both. Just IMHO.
- [MIB-DOCTORS] Fwd: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-o… Johannes Merkle