RE: Review: IESG Agenda and Package for January 22, 2004 Telechat

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

Mike responds to my posting:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > MIB Doctors, here is (a bit belated, appology) the list of
> > documents on next weeks IESG telechat agenda.
> > 
> > Pls review (specifically from a MIB and Network Management point
> > of view) and send us (ADs) feedback. 
> ...
> > 2.1 WG Submissions
> > 2.1.1 New Item
> ...
> >   o Two-document ballot:  - 3 of 7
> >      - draft-ietf-rohc-mib-rtp-09.txt
> >        Definitions of Managed Objects for Robus Header Compression (Proposed 
> >        Standard) 
> >        Note: Made the fix to the terminology Sec Cons an RFC Editor note:. 
> >          OLD:
> >          Security Considerations.
> >          This document is of an informative nature, and does not have any
> >          security aspects to address.
> >          NEW:
> >          Security Considerations.
> >          The clear understanding of ROHC channels and their relations to
> >          IP interfaces and the physical medium plays a critical role 
> >          in ensuring secure usage of ROHC. This document is therefore a
> >          valuable adjunct to the Security Considerations found in RFC 3095
> >          and other ROHC specifications, however, as it just reviews 
> >          information and definitions, it does not add new security issues
> >          to the ROHC protocol specifications.. 
> >      - draft-ietf-rohc-terminology-and-examples-02.txt
> >        RObust Header Compression (ROHC):Terminology and Channel Mapping 
> >        Examples (Informational) 
> >     Token: Allison Mankin
> 
> In the above, the RFC Editor note should be attached to the second
> document (draft-ietf-rohc-terminology-and-examples-02.txt).  
> It clearly does not apply to draft-ietf-rohc-mib-rtp-09.txt.
> 
Correct. It came out a bit wierd on the agenda text.
The ID-tracker has it properly specified as a change to the terminology
doc. Thanks for catching the inconsistency on agenda.

> >   o draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-05.txt
> >     Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) (Proposed 
> >     Standard) - 4 of 7 
> >     Token: Margaret Wasserman
> 
> The following REVISION/DESCRIPTION pair pertains to a rev that was a
> previous I-D and should not appear in the published document:
> 
>     REVISION      "200107130000Z"
>     DESCRIPTION
>            "IP version neutral revision."
> 
> See draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt section 4.5.  My
> recommendation is to request that it be deleted.
> 
Yep I noticed taht too and will raise it.
In fact I had some other (earlier) review comments that seem to not
have been addressed either.

Bert
> //cmh
>