RE: Updating the MIB Review guidelines - my comments part 2

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > While I am at it, I recall that I made a deal with Juergen some time
> > ago to include PhysicalIndex and PhysicalIndexOrZero from
> > <draft-ietf-entmib-v3-04.txt> _provided_ that the latter made it to
> > the publication queue.  I see from the I-D tracker that it is still
> > in the AD Evaluation state.  How close do you think it is to
> > being approved?
> > 
> I hope I can make that to IETF Last Call before I go on
> vacation, so it would then enter the queues faster/earlier than
> the review guidelines.

OK, I will put PhysicalIndex and PhysicalIndexOrZero into Appendix C
and I will change the reference/citations to point to 2737bis.

> .. snip ..
> 
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, C. M. Heard wrote:
> > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > > > So we should not make ourselves dependent on 2223bis. Or so is
> > > > my personal (actaully pretty strong) opinion.
> > >
> > > I suppose that we could try to cut the tie with 2223bis [ ... ]
> > 
> > I have already agreed to remove most of the citations of 2223bis, but
> > the ones in Section 3, Section 3.5, and Appendix A are difficult to
> > remove without a fair amount of rewriting.  What I would like to do is
> > issue an updated draft with all the other agreed-upon changes and
> > then revisit this issue if necessary after we have some "running
> > code" experience with the new set of changes.
> > 
> 
> COuld we phrase it so that 2223bis becomes informational ref, 
> i.e. something aka
.. snip ..
>    In general, IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB
>    modules MUST conform to the requirements for IETF standards-track
>    RFCs documented in [RFC2223] or its follow on, currently work is
>    being done as per [RFC2223bis].  Because the version under review
>    will be an Internet-Draft, the notices on the front page will comply
>    with the requirements of http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
>    and not with those of [RFC2223].  The rest of the requirements in
>    [RFC2223] or its follow on, however, do apply 
>    (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html for additional details).
> 
>    Section 4 of [RFC2223] lists the sections that may exist in an
>    RFC.  The "body of memo" part of an RFC in general contains multiple
>    sections, and in a MIB document MUST contain at least the following:
> 
> That way, RFC2223 becomes the normative ref and we already point
> (informatively) to the follow on work and we would not get
> dependent on the 2223bis version. I would think/hope that the
> changes you need to maek for that are not too big. Just thinking
> aloud here.

If that would actually work I would be more that happy to do it.
Unfortunately 2223 does not actually list the sections in an RFC.
As far as I can tell 2223bis is the only written source.

Another issue that isn't covered in 2223 is the
normative/informative reference split (this postdates 2223). There
is a policy page on the RFC Editor's web site that discusses this,
but it points to 2223bis for the details.

I can see three possible resolutions to this:

1.) RFC2223bis actually gets published.
2.) The material we need from 2223bis finds its way into various
    policy pages on the RFC Editor web site and we point to those.
3.) We lift the material we need from 2223bis.

What I am proposing to do is to proceed for now as if #1 will
happen and then revisit the issue if that does not happen
within a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks,

Mike