RE: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at standards-track documents

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Yes, that addresses my concerns

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 11 februari 2003 0:08
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: clarify that MIB review requirements are targeted at
> standards-track documents
> 
> 
> [ in reply to comments/review 
> <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-00.txt> ]
> 
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > - Sect 3 talks about need for IPR section.
> >   I believe such is only required for stds track and bcp docs
> >   It is allowed in other docs, but not required I think.
> 
> Indeed, according to RFC 2026 the notices are required for
> standards track documents, and that's Section 3.4 says.  I
> guess what you are objecting to is the language in Section 3
> which precedes it which just says "IETF specifications
> containing MIB modules" and not "IETF standards-track
> specifications containing MIB modules".
> 
> I guess you are right, and there are (at least) two places where
> this needs to be changed.  In Section 1, "Introduction", I need to
> change the first sentence so that it says
> 
>    Some time ago the IESG instituted a policy of requiring OPS area
>    review of IETF standards-track specifications containing 
> MIB modules. 
> 
> (s/all IETF/IETF standards-track/).  And in Section 3, I should change
> I need to change the first sentence so that it says
> 
>    In general, IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB
>    modules MUST conform to the requirements for IETF standard-track
>    RFCs documented in [RFC2223bis].
> 
> (s/IETF/IETF standards-track/g).
> 
> Will these changes address your concerns?
> 
> Mike
>