RE: Volunteer for MIB Doctor review draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt

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

I have no other volunteers yet. SO thanks for volunteering.
I agree with your initial assesment.

You can include IANA (iana@iana.org) to get discussion on
the IANA considerations. I suggest to then do specific
IANA related issues in a separate email and do any other
issues in another email.

Pls post comments to ipsec WG, copy security ADs and myself.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 28 maart 2003 1:21
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Volunteer for MIB Doctor review
> draft-ietf-ipsec-doi-tc-mib-07.txt
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Anyone?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Bert 
> 
> Did you get any takers yet?  If not I will volunteer to do it,
> provided that we can get the following issue worked out:
> 
> - the document defines the initial version of
> an IANA-maintained MIB module and nothing else,
> 
> and yet
> 
> - it is being submitted for Proposed
> Standard (according to what I see in
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/status.html).
> 
> Since the document does not contain the authoritiative version of
> any MIB module, I don't see how it can be submitted for Standards
> Track.  The authoritative version of the MIB module (i.e., the one
> that will need to be cited in normative references) will reside on
> the IANA web site, and not in this document.  Hence I think its
> status should be Informational.
> 
> I've cc:'d the MIB Doctor's list to see if the other reviewers agree
> with this assertion (or perhaps think that I am insane for making
> it).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> P.S.  From a quick look at the draft it seems that the bulk of the
> review time will not be spent on traditional MIB Doctor things but
> rather on making the IANA considerations sufficiently clear (it may
> very well be necessary to put the update rules in each separate
> DESCRIPTION clause).  Might it not be advisable to get someone from
> IANA to be involved in the review at a very early stage?
>