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

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Please record the following comments: 
> 
> 1. The document should bear the header: 'Obsoleted RFC 3636 (when
s/Obsoleted/Obsoletes/
> approved)
...
> 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

Actually, all the information in 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 is adequately
covered in the Acknowledgments section, and rather than move these
sections into an appendix I think it would be better just to drop
them altogether.

> 7. The Security Considerations section must slightly change its content
> as the document now deals with two MIB modules rather than one

Here is a specific proposal from some text.

(a) add some text to the effect that the IANA-MAU-MIB does not per
se have any effect on the security of the Internet, as it contains
only TCs and no managed objects.  I would suggest the following,
added to the beginning of the Security Considerations section:

   The IANA-MAU-MIB does not define any management objects.  Instead, it
   defines a set of textual conventions which are used by the
   MAU-MIB and may be used by other MIB modules to to define management
   objects.  Meaningful security considerations can only be written for
   MIB modules that define management objects.

(b) retain the remainder of the current text with "this MIB module"
replaced by "the MAU-MIB".

Submitted in the hope that the above suggestions will be helpful in
minimizing editor workload :-)

Mike Heard