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

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > Other than that, I support and agree with the comments made by Mike
> > on Sept 9th (and posted on the bridge wg list)
> 
> Actually, the -03 version that K.C. submitted just before the
> blackout deadline addresses most of those comments.  The ones that
> were not addressed were the questions of using standard boilerplate
> or at least updating the old boilerplate with current references
> (which Bert discussed) and of making RFC 1213 into a normative
> reference (because of the requirements in Section 3.5).  This
> version is not yet in the repository;  I saw it because I was cc'd
> on some e-mail correspondence that contained it.

I see that K.C.'s submission has now appeared in the repository.
Here are my detailed comments, which are basically just an expansion
of the above and some earlier comments from Bert:

1.) In the Abstract:  s/this draft/this document/ and
s/SNMPv2 SMI compliant/SMIv2-compliant/.

2.) In Section 1:  I recommend to replace this with the current
boilerplate at http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html
(also mentioned in Bert's comments of Tue, 4 Nov 2003).

3.) In the MIB module revision description for the current version:

OLD:
                  The IETF Bridge-mib WG made the following changes:
NEW:
                  The IETF Bridge-mib WG made the following changes
                  in order to get the MIB module to compile:

4.) In the MIB MODULE revision description for the previous version:

OLD:
    DESCRIPTION  "The initial and authoritative version as published at:
NEW:
    DESCRIPTION  "The initial version as published at:

5.) In Section 7:  change the dates on [RFC2578], [RFC2579], and
[RFC2580] from May 1999 back to April 1999 (this seems to
have resulted from a global replace in this version).

6.) In Section 7:  add RFC 1213 as a normative reference.  That is
needed because of its mention in Section 3.5.

7.) In Sections 7 and 8:  move [RFC3410] from Section 7 to Section 8
since it is customary to list this as an informative reference.

8.) In Section 8:  eliminate [RFC1157], [RFC1212], [RFC1901],
[RFC1905], [RFC1906], [RFC2119], [RFC2570], [RFC2572], [RFC2574],
[RFC2573], and [RFC2575].  Of these, [RFC2119] is not needed because
there are no capitalized MUST, MAY, etc. keywords, and the rest are
obsolete and are not needed if the current boilerplate is used for
Section 1.

9.) Add an RFC Editor note that Section 11 is to be removed prior to
publication.

Bert had some additional comments in his message of 4 Nov.

Regards,

Mike Heard