Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:48:22 -0800 (PST)

MIB Doctors,

Section 3.7 of the MIB review guidelines became obsolete with the recent
updates to copyright notices published in RFC RFC 4748 and announced in
a message forwarded to this list on October 27.  Attached below is a
"delta document" to RFC 4181 that will bring it into alignment with the
recent announcement.  If there is general agreement with the content, I
propose to submit it as <draft-ietf-ops-rfc4181-update-00.txt> when the
I-D submission blackout ends.

Regards,

Mike Heard

--cut here--

INTERNET-DRAFT                                       C. M. Heard, Editor
                                                            <month> 2006

              RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust

                      <insert file name here>

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on <insert expiration date here>.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 4181, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers
   of MIB Documents", to recognize the creation of the IETF Trust.

1.  Introduction

   In order to reflect the creation of the IETF Trust, certain updates
   to the copyright notices required in IETF documents by RFC 3978
   [RFC3978] have been published in RFC 4748 [RFC4748].  This document
   updates RFC 4181 [RFC4181] to bring it into alignment with those
   changes.

2.  Updates to RFC 4181

   The text of RFC 4181 is hereby updated as set forth below to reflect
   the creation of the IETF Trust.

2.1.  Updates to Section 3.7

   In the copyright notice templates in Section 3.7, replace all
   occurrences of "The Internet Society" with "The IETF Trust".

3.  Security Considerations

   The updates in this document have no impact in the security of the
   Internet.

4.  IANA Considerations

   The updates in this document have no impact on the IANA.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC3978]       Bradner, S., Ed., "IETF Rights in Contributions",
                   BCP 78, RFC 3978, March 2005.

   [RFC4748]       Bradner, S., Ed., " RFC 3978 Update to Recognize the
                   IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 4748, October 2006.

   [RFC4181]       Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers
                   of MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.

Editor's Address

   C. M. Heard
   158 South Madison Ave. #207
   Pasadena, CA 91101-2569
   USA

   Phone: +1 626 795 5311
   EMail: [email-masked]

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [email-masked].

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

_______________________________________________
MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:38:35 +0100

> I-D submission blackout ends.

I am wondering whether we really need such an RFC. The core of the

>    occurrences of "The Internet Society" with "The IETF Trust".

Can we not just post an RFC erratum and move on? (People who do not
find the erratum will likely also not find the new RFC and building a
tool which checks for and warns about the string "Internet Society" in
MIB modules should be trivial to do . ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:08:05 -0500

Hi,

Using an errata seems a much simpler approach to me.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc: MIB Doctors
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF
Trust
> > propose to submit it as 
> <draft-ietf-ops-rfc4181-update-00.txt> when the

---

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:15:10 -0800 (PST)

---2133786286-749784775-1162313560=:30359
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

>>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Juergen> I am wondering whether we really need such an RFC. The core
Juergen> of the document seems to be:
Juergen> 
Juergen> >    In the copyright notice templates in Section 3.7, replace all
Juergen> >    occurrences of "The Internet Society" with "The IETF Trust".
Juergen> 
Juergen> Can we not just post an RFC erratum and move on?

Unfortunately, the RFC Editor no longer processes errata.  See the
attached message for an explanation.  Also, since the change is not
correcting something that was wrong with 4181 when it was published,
but updating it to reflect a chenge in IETF rules that took place
after its publication, it might well be rejected as an erratum.

If some kind soul wants to put collected RFC 4181 updates on the OPS
Area web site I'd be all for that, but I'm not sure if that would
have "official" status (if that matters).

Juergen> (People who do not find the erratum will likely also not find
Juergen> the new RFC and building a tool which checks for and warns about
Juergen> the string "Internet Society" in MIB modules should be trivial
Juergen> to do . ;-)

That's true.  Maybe we can talk the tools team into adding a such a
check to the on-line I-D nits checker.

>>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Dan> Mike,
Dan>
Dan> Thanks for proposing this.
Dan>
Dan> 1. If by naming the I-D draft-ietf-ops-rfc4181-update-00.txt
Dan> you want to acknowledge that it is an OPS area document, you
Dan> should announce this on [email-masked].
Dan> 2. Add to the header 'Updates RFC4181 (if approved)'
Dan>
Dan> We can give it a fast run as AD-sponsored document and publish
Dan> it as a BCP. Dave Harrington plans to do a similar thing with
Dan> the MIB template document (also updated as per 4748).

If we MIB Doctors agree that we want to publish the document, I will
gladly do all that.  If it is approved, it should be published as an
update to BCP 111.

Let me know how you want me to proceed.

Mike

---2133786286-749784775-1162313560=:30359
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Description: Re: Erratum for RFC 4181 (fwd)

From: "Bob Braden" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Erratum for RFC 4181
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:15:30 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

  *> 
  *> RFC Editor,
  *> 
  *> I notice that the erratum that I submitted for RFC 4181 over six
  *> months ago have yet to be posted on the RFC Editor's web site.
  *> 
  *> I dislike being a nag, but this delay does seem to be quite long,
  *> and I would very much appreciate some action on this request.
  *> 
  *> Thanks in advance.
  *> 
  *> Mike Heard (RFC 4181 editor)

Mike,

Since last Fall, when it became apparent that the backlog of
unpublished RFCs was building up in an unacceptable manner, the RFC
Editor has devoted our (limited) resources exclusively to publishing
RFCs.  One of the important tasks we deliberately suspended was posting
errata (as I believe we have announced during IETF plenary
presentations).  As a (poor but low-cost) substitute, we are simply
posting the messages notifying us of errata.  Your message appears in
that file.  See the link on the bottom of the RFC Editor errata page.

We agree that this is a distressing situation.  Clearly some errata
are more important than others.  I can imagine the IESG identifying
a high-priority subset of the errata and asking us to divert enough
publication resources to get those posted.  Absent such a request,
we feel that publishing new documents has the most urgency.  Of
course, it would be even better if new documents HAD NO errata! ;-|

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor

  *> 
  *> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Alice Hagens wrote:
  *> > Mike and Bert,
  *> > 
  *> > Mike's message of 11/1/05 has been added to 
  *> > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/pending-errata/pending-errata.msgs
  *> > 
  *> > Apologies for the delay.
  *> > 
  *> > Alice Hagens
  *> > for the RFC Editor
  *> > 
  *> > >X-Unix-From: [email-masked]  Tue Jan  3 02:34:50 2006
  *> > >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on boreas.isi.edu
  *> > >X-Spam-Level: 
  *> > >X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham  
  *> > version=3.1.0
  *> > >From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
  *> > >To: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
  *> > >Cc: David Kessens <[email-masked]>, "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
  *> > >Subject: RE: Erratum for RFC 4181
  *> > >Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:32:18 +0100 
  *> > >MIME-Version: 1.0
  *> > >X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
  *> > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
  *> > >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id 
  *> > k03AWQi06128
  *> > >X-MailScanner-From: rfc-ed
  *> > >
  *> > >RFC-Editor,
  *> > >
  *> > >For completeness: I do agree with this request!
  *> > >
  *> > >Bert
  *> > >p.s. I wish you a prosperous 2006!
  *> > >
  *> > >> -----Original Message-----
  *> > >> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:[email-masked]]
  *> > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 01:26
  *> > >> To: RFC Editor
  *> > >> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); David Kessens
  *> > >> Subject: Re: Erratum for RFC 4181
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> RFC Editor:
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> Some time ago I requested that an erratum for RFC 4181 be created to
  *> > >> note the presence of the typographical/formatting errors detailed
  *> > >> below.  That has not yet happened, and my request does not appear in
  *> > >> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/pending-errata/pending-errata.msgs,
  *> > >> so I am asking again.  If my request is already in a queue somewhere
  *> > >> and will be acted upon later, then please accept my apologies for
  *> > >> the duplication.
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> Thanks,
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> Mike Heard
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
  *> > >> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 21:12:49 -0800 (PST)
  *> > >> From: C. M. Heard <[email-masked]>
  *> > >> To: RFC Editor <[email-masked]>
  *> > >> Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>,
  *> > >>      David Kessens <[email-masked]>
  *> > >> Subject: Re: Erratum for RFC 4181
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, C. M. Heard wrote:
  *> > >> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Alfred Hnes wrote:
  *> > >> > > I've [...] observed two minor typos in the text of RFC 4181
  *> > >> > > that migth be worth noting for consideration in the case of
  *> > >> > > any future update to this RFC:
  *> > >> > > 
  *> > >> > > *  The bottom text line of page 29 says:
  *> > >> > > 
  *> > >> > >       " ... .  Two point are worth reiterating:"
  *> > >> > >                        ^^
  *> > >> > >    It should say:
  *> > >> > > 
  *> > >> > >       " ... .  Two points are worth reiterating:"
  *> > >> > > 
  *> > >> > > *  The first line of item 8 in Appendix A, on page 34, says:
  *> > >> > > 
  *> > >> > >       "... -- if the draft does not contains a verbatim copy ..."
  *> > >> > >                                            ^
  *> > >> > >    It should say:
  *> > >> > > 
  *> > >> > >       "... -- if the draft does not contain a verbatim copy ..."
  *> > >> > 
  *> > >> > RFC Editor:
  *> > >> > 
  *> > >> > As document editor, I would like to request than an RFC Erratum be
  *> > >> > created for RFC 4181 listing these errors.  Thanks to Alfred Hnes
  *> > >> > for pointing them out.
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> In addition to the above, I have noticed the following formatting
  *> > >> error in the first bullet in Section 4.6.1.1 on p. 14.  The text
  *> > >> in the RFC looks like this:
  *> > >> 
  *> > >>    - For integer-valued enumerations:
  *> > >> 
  *> > >>      - INTEGER is REQUIRED; - Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST
  *> > >>      NOT be used.
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> and it should look like this:
  *> > >> 
  *> > >>    - For integer-valued enumerations:
  *> > >> 
  *> > >>      - INTEGER is REQUIRED;
  *> > >>      - Integer32, Unsigned32, and Gauge32 MUST NOT be used.
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> I would appreciate it if you would include this item when you create
  *> > >> the erratum for RFC 4181.
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> Regards,
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> Mike Heard
  *> > >> 
  *> > >> 
  *> > 
  *> > 
  *> 

---2133786286-749784775-1162313560=:30359--