RE: Status of MIB review guidelines draft

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

Mike,

I would favor option 2). As long as we have the opportunity to improve the document, I do not see why we should not do it. It would be good if you can post in advance the changes that you intent to make, so that people can react if they are not happy with something. 

Thank you for all the tremendous effort you are making. 

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: 18 January, 2004 8:55 AM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Status of MIB review guidelines draft
> 
> 
> Colleages,
> 
> The current MIB review guidelines draft
> 
> http://www1.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-mib-review
> -guidelines-02.txt
> 
> was placed into the I-D repository on Mon Aug 25 10:02:25 
> 2003 -0400 (EDT)
> and (per announced policy) expires on Fri Feb 27 09:02:25 
> 2004 -0500 (EST).
> It therefore needs to be refreshed (or otherwise prevented 
> from expiring)
> before then.
> 
> As some of you may recall, Bert proposed sending this document to
> IETF last call when it was submitted last August, but I pointed out
> that the IPR WG's updates to RFC 2026 would cause some things in the
> review guidelines doc to become obsolete (specifically, the
> instructions to copy verbatim the notices in RFC 2026 Section 10)
> and would impose new review requirements that were not contained in
> the MIB review document.  For those reasons I advocated waiting
> until that stuff was finished.  And in fact we really had no other
> choice, since the RFC Editor adopted the same policy with respect to
> draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis, and the MIB review guidelines
> normatively reference that document.
> 
> Unfortunately, the relevant IPR documents are still in the RFC
> Editor queue;  the status page claims that they are awaiting
> revisions by the author:
> 
> 2003/11/01   draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08.txt
> AUTH
> S. Bradner, Ed.
> IETF Rights in Contributions
> Bytes: 46080
> 
> 2003/11/01   draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12.txt
> AUTH
> S. Bradner, Ed.
> Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
> Bytes: 46296
> 
> So the questions is what to do now.  My personal preference would be
> just to document current practice, with a note that future changes
> to RFC copyright and I-D disclosure rules are anticipated.  However,
> that would require that I convince the RFC Editor to do the same with
> respect to 2223bis, and somehow I doubt that will happen.  Some more
> realistic possibilities that come to mind are:
> 
> 1.) Issue a new draft that does nothing except update the references
> (a) to reflect I-Ds with new version (e.g., replace the pointer to
> draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt with a pointer to to
> draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt) and (b) to reflect the I-Ds that
> have since been published as RFCs (that list includes RFCs 3584,
> 3591, 3593, and 3621).  Then continue to wait for the IPR documents
> to be published and for the RFC copyright procedures and I-D
> disclosure procedures therein to be put into practice.
> 
> 2.) Same as above plus add updates that seem to be necessary based
> on what has transpired in MIB reviews over the past six months.
> 
> 3.) Something else that I have not thought of.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> //cmh
> 
> 
>