Demoting rfc2223bis to an informative reference

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

MIB Doctors:

Bert has already looked over the following.  If I hear no objections
the proposed modifications will appear in the next spin.

Mike

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:00:47 -0800 (PST)
From: C. M. Heard <heard@pobox.com>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Status of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> It looks to me, that we might be better of if we can massage
> things such that 2223bis becomes an informative ref

OK, I looked over the text again, and here is what I come up with.
Let me know what you think.

>    In general, IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB
>    modules are subject to the same requirements as IETF standards-track
>    RFCs (see [RFC2223bis]), although there are some differences.  In
>    particular, since the version under review will be an Internet-Draft,
>    the notices on the front page MUST comply with the requirements of
>    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt and not with those of
>    [RFC2223bis].  In addition, since the specification under review is
>    expected to be submitted to the IESG, it MUST comply with certain
>    requirements that do not necessarily apply to RFCs;  see
>    http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html for details.

I think we could make the case that in this paragraph the reference to
2223bis is informative ... the normative stuff in that in 1id-guidelines
and ID-Checklist.  At least that was my intent when I wrote it.  So I
propose to make no change here.

>    Section 4 of [RFC2223bis] lists the sections that may exist in an
>    RFC.  Sections from the abstract onward may also be present in an
>    Internet-Draft.  The "body of memo" is always required, and in a MIB
>    document MUST contain at least the following:

This reference is clearly normative, but I think we can justify
demoting it if we also provide a pointer to ID-Checklist.  So here
is the proposed replacement text:

   Section 4 of [RFC2223bis] lists the sections that may exist in an
   RFC.  Sections from the abstract onward may also be present in an
   Internet-Draft;  see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html.  The
   "body of memo" is always required, and in a MIB document MUST contain
   at least the following:

> 2-----------
>    Section 4.7f of [RFC2223bis] specifies the requirements for the
>    references sections.  In particular, there MUST be separate lists of
>    normative and informative references, each in a separate section.
>    The style SHOULD follow that of recently published RFCs.

Similar considerations apply here.  Proposed replacement text:

   Section 4.7f of [RFC2223bis] specifies the requirements for the
   references sections in an RFC;  http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html
   imposes the same requirements on Internet-Drafts.  In particular,
   there MUST be separate lists of normative and informative references,
   each in a separate section.  The style SHOULD follow that of recently
   published RFCs.

> 3------------
>    2.) Abstract -- verify that the abstract does not contain references,
>    that it does not have a section number, and that its content follows
>    the guidelines in [RFC2223bis].

I could replace [RFC2223bis] by http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
since they say the same thing about abstracts.  This is the proposed text:

   2.) Abstract -- verify that the abstract does not contain references,
   that it does not have a section number, and that its content follows
   the guidelines in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.

I am a little bit uncomfortable about the second item in the list (I feel
that I am being a little bit slippery) but if you are OK with this I can
live with it too.

Mike