RE: Mib transition

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

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, David B Harrington wrote:
> I have no problem with saying, "if the 802.1 WG determines that
> the existing documents must be updated, and the IETF agrees that
> no alternative approach is equally as good, then the IETF will
> transfer the necessary rights to the 802.1 WG to perform the
> updates." But I don't think we should just transfer the rights
> because, maybe, sometime, this may be necessary.
> 
> Can we open the discussion to more than this one issue?

OK by me, I think I've made my position clear by now :-)

> - Do the Mib Doctors understand what might be asked of you if
> you agree to review an 802.1 MIB document?

I assume that it would be similar to what we now do when we are
asked to do a MIB Doctor review for an IETF MIB module.  The main
difference, as I understand it, would be that we would not do the
IETF-specific "general documentation stuff" in Section 3 of the RFC
4181;  this presumably will be replaced by some soon-to-be-specified
IEEE-specific stuff (hopefully much less onerous than what we
inflict on ourselves).  I also understand that the IEEE has a more
formal mechanism for submitting comments on work-in-progress and
that the output from a review would be a set of formal comments.

Please set me straight if I have erred.


> - Thus far, only the ASN.1 portion of a MIB document is being
> made accessible in ASCII format; the surrounding text is only
> available in PDF format. Will this be a problem if you are doing
> reviews?

I would have no problem with this, assuming that I get a password to
download the latest PDF draft from the IEEE web site for the purpose
of doing the review.  Note: I am to some extent familiar with this
process, since I got access to the 802.3ae drafts back when the
hubmib WG was working on the WIS MIB (RFC 3637).

//cmh