RE: Demoting rfc2223bis to an informative reference

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi,

If the goal is to try to break the dependency on a
slow-to-be-finalized RFC, then I suggest a better approach would be to
separate the document publication rules and the mib development
guidelines - have any guidelines about publishing mib documents in the
IETF system, e.g. mib boilerplates and mib security boilerplates and
mib document IPR and mib document requirments for
normative/informative references, moved into [rfc2223bis] (and
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt and
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html) and make the mib guidelines
document only about developing mibs, not about IETF document
publication policies.

MIB Doctirs shouldn't have to waste time reviewing whether the
boilerplate is the most current revision, and whether the IPR
statement is the right revision, and whether normative/informative
references have been handled properly, and whether lines are less than
70 characters in length, etc. That should be handled by an
IETF-publication-review-doctors group employed by the RFC-editor or
the IESG for that specific purpose. MIB Doctors should be asked to
review submitted mib modules for their mib design.

Bert, you have expressed concern about not having MIB doctors
available for all the documents you need reviewed. If the job was
about reviewing mib module designs rather than verifying IETF
publication rules compliance, we might find more time to review mib
modules for you.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 6:44 AM
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: Demoting rfc2223bis to an informative reference
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>