RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt

If we indeed have an Informational RFC that basically
republishes an IEEE doc, then we do not use the normal
copyright. For an ID, the guidelines say:

  Mandatory Statements
  ====================

  All Internet-Drafts must begin with ONE of the following three
  statements:

         This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to
         all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

         This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to
         all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the
         right to produce derivative works is not granted.

         This document is an Internet-Draft and is NOT offered in
         accordance with Section 10 of RFC2026, and the author does not
         provide the IETF with any rights other than to publish as an
         Internet-Draft

So it seems that the 2nd statement is probably the best statement
to be used in the I-D. Or, you might want to check section 5.2
of draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06.txt, which is onder IPR WG
Last Call now and probably will become the new practice soon.

Also, in the abstract, I would not talk about "this standard"
If anything, then maybe "this IEEE 802.1x standard" or some such.
But even that is questionable.... better just say "this IEEE 802.1x
specification" and let the IEEE keep their way of how they
decide something is a std or not.
Also, abstract talks about "this draft". Better use "this memo"
or "this document", so that it is still valid when it becomes an
RFC.

I think we still want to have a copyright statement in the 
DESCRIPTION of the MODULE-IDENTITY. Since it points back to the
RFC, it will point to proper text, no?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: dinsdag 29 juli 2003 8:02
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
> 
> 
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> > Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
> > Bridge MIB Working Group of the IETF.
> > 
> > 	Title		: Definitions for Port Access Control (IEEE
> >                           802.1X) MIB
> > 	Author(s)	: K. Norseth
> > 	Filename	: draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
> > 	Pages		: 42
> > 	Date		: 2003-7-25
> > 	
> [ ... ]
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-02.txt
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I have three major comments on this draft and few minor ones.
> 
> MAJOR COMMENT: I see that in going from the -01 to the -02 draft the
> following changes were made to the MODULE-IDENTITY invocation in the
> IEEE8021-PAE-MIB:
> 
> *** 22,34 ****
> --- 22,52 ----
>    ieee8021paeMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
>       LAST-UPDATED "200101160000Z"
>       ORGANIZATION "IEEE 802.1 Working Group"
>       CONTACT-INFO
>           "http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/1/index.html"
> + 
> +     ORGANIZATION "IETF Bridge MIB Working Group"
> +     CONTACT-INFO
> +         "Email: [email protected]"
> + 
> +                  K.C. Norseth
> +                  L-3 Communications
> +             Tel: +1 801-594-2809
> +           Email: [email protected]
> +          Postal: 640 N. 2200 West.
> +                  Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0850
> + 
> +          Send comments to <[email protected]>
> + 
>       DESCRIPTION
>           "The Port Access Entity module for managing IEEE
>           802.1X."
> + 
> +         "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This version of
> +          this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for
> +          full legal notices."
>   
>     --    ::= { iso(1) std(0) iso8802(8802) ieee802dot1(1)
>     --          ieee802dot1mibs(1) 1 }
>     ::= { iso std(0) iso8802(8802) ieee802dot1(1) 
> ieee802dot1mibs(1) 1 }
>   
> I believe that these changes (i.e., the added lines marked above
> with '+') should be backed out.  For one thing, the MIB module won't
> compile when they are present.  For another, this MIB module is NOT
> an IETF MIB module.  It is an IEEE MIB module, as the draft
> explicitly says.  Therefore, the IEEE 802.1 WG should remain listed
> as the ORGANIZATION and its web site should be listed in the
> CONTACT-INFO.  Also, since the IEEE owns the copyright, not the
> IETF, it seems wrong to insert the standard ISOC MIB copyright here.
> 
> MAJOR COMMENT:  since this draft is republishing an IEEE standard,
> it the Full Copyright Statement language needs to reflect this fact.  
> The IETF does not own the copyright and does not have change
> control, but the Full Copyright Statement (which is a verbatim copy
> of the one in Section 10 of RFC 2026) says otherwise.  This needs to
> be fixed.  Note that the version of the Full Copyright Statement
> that is in RFC 2026 is intended for standards-track documents, not
> for informational republication of standards from other SDOs.
> 
> MAJOR COMMENT:  the I-D boilerplate should probably have the "except
> the right to make derivative works" language, since the MIB module
> is an IEEE standard and change control is not being ceded to the
> IETF.
> 
> MINOR COMMENT:  in the Abstract, s/SNMPv2 SMI/SMIv2/
> 
> MINOR COMMENT:  since this version of the MIB module has some
> updates from the IEEE original in order to correct some MIB
> compilation errors, it might be a good idea to add a
> REVISION/DESCRIPTION pair and also to change the LAST-UPDATED clause
> to match the new REVISION clause. The verbiage at the beginning of
> Section 4 claims that this stuff is present, but it is not.  It
> might also be a good idea to suggest to the IEEE to post the
> corrected MIB module on their web site (that would also have the
> salutary effect of making the ASN.1 comment at the front of the MIB
> module with the URL less misleading).
> 
> MINOR COMMENT:  the ASN.1 comment that shows the original
> (incorrect) form for the OID assigned to ieee8021paeMIB is not
> helpful and should be removed (in general, broken stuff should be
> removed, not commented out, and the changes should be documented in
> a REVISION/DESCRIPTION pair).
> 
> MINOR COMMENT:  in the DESCRIPTION clause of
> dot1xAuthBackendNonNakResponsesFromSupplicant
> s/Authenticators/Authenticator's/ (the apostrophe was apparently
> deleted when the non-ascii quotes in the original were converted to
> ascii).
> 
> MINOR COMMENT:  the change log section is broken.  It records the
> -00 to -01 changes but says otherwise.  Also, there should be a
> note to the RFC Editor indicating that the section is to be
> removed prior to publication as an RFC.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Heard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
>