RE: WGLC - http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-03.txt

Please record the following comments: 

1. The document should bear the header: 'Obsoleted RFC 3636 (when
approved)
2. s/in order to decrease re-issues of the basic MIB module./in order to
decrease the need of updating the basic MAU MIB module./
3. It would be good to point references for the EFM and 10GBASE-CX4
standards from the Introduction section.
4. IANA Considerations - I would add the recommendation that IANA adds
for each new MAU type approved following an Expert Review a short
description of the MAU technology and wherever possible a reference to a
publicly available specification
5. Do we really need to carry 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 in the body of the
specification? Unless somebody tells me a good reason to keep them I
would see those moved in an appendix
6. Some of the DESCRIPTION clauses for the new MAUs seem incomplete and
or duplicated - for example dot3MauType100BaseBX10D and the following
100 and 100 MAUs
7. The Security Considerations section must slightly change its content
as the document now deals with two MIB modules rather than one
8. The year in the copyright notice in the MIB modules text should be
changes to 2006

Dan



 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) 
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 3:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: WGLC - 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636b
> is-03.txt
> 
> 
> This is a Working Group Last Call announcement for the 
> 'Definitions of Managed Objects for IEEE 802.3 Medium 
> Attachment Units (MAUs)' Internet-Draft - 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636b
> is-03.txt. We plan to forward this I-D to the IESG for 
> consideration as Proposed Standard. Please let the WG know if 
> there are any concerns or issues with this draft by sending a 
> mail at [email protected] before Thursday 22, 2006, COB.  
> 
> Dan
> 
>  
>