RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03p.txt

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:23:25 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.bridge
Message-ID <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15502D94F94@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Some comments that I may not have vented earlier.

- Abstract talks about "this standard" a few times.
  I think you mean "This IEEE 802.1X standard". Probably better
  to spell that out every time, otherwise people may read it
  as "this standard as specified in this document"
- last para in abstract. 
  s/This draft/This document/
  Reads much better once it becomes an RFC
- Did we discuss section 1 before?
  Why would we not make it in sync with the standard MIB boilerplate
  that we use these days? I believe Mike has made the same comments
- Mike has already commented on the REVISION and LAST-UPDATED dates,
  and how to document the various revisions. I agree with that, except
    REVISION     "200101160000Z"  -- Jan 16th, 2001
    DESCRIPTION  "The initial and authoritative version as published at:
  Why is that "older" version authoritative? It has bugs that we're
  fixing, does it not? Can we just keep it at "The initial version
  as piblished at:" ??
  With the current "authoritative", I would wonder what to do with this
  one, since it is not authoritative anyway?
- I wonder about section 11.
  Should we add a note to RFC-Editor to remove it when RFC gets published?
  I thinks we should!

Other than that, I support and agree with the comments made by Mike
on Sept 9th (and posted on the bridge wg list)

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K.C. Norseth [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 september 2003 6:39
> To: Les Bell; C. M. Heard
> Cc: [email protected]; Kenyon C Norseth
> Subject: [Bridge-mib] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03.txt
> 
> 
> Folks,  saved as draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03p.txt
> 
> Here is the latest proposed revision to draft-ietf-bridge-8021x-03
> 
> I have added the changes we have been discussing about 
> copyright.  I have
> not added the page formatting on this revison yet.  I also 
> have not compiled
> it yet because I didn't have access to libsmi this weekend.
> 
> How is this?  Comments, suggestions?
> 
> K.C.
>