Hi,




 




I have reviewed draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-

obsolete-01
 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all 
IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
 with the intent of improving the operational
 aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last 
call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document 
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other 
last call comments.




 




This document contains versions of several 
obsoleted MIB modules (IPV6-MIB, IPV6-TC, IPV6-ICMP-MIB, IPV6-TCP-MIB 
and IPV6-UDP-MIB) for the purpose of updating the MIB module repositories.




 




An RFC 5706 review does not apply, as this is not a new protocol or extension of an existing protocol.





 




There is no operational or manageability issue with
 this document. At best it can clarify the status of MIB modules in the 
repositories which is a good thing.





 




I have however the feeling that it’s kind of an 
overkill to republish MIB modules just to change their status clause. Do
 we really need to copy all the original MIB modules? Will we do this in
 the future with all MIB modules that have been
 and will be obsolete? Same about the YANG modules? 




 




Also the statement in the motivation section that 
‘the original RFCs (as is normal IETF policy) never changed from being 
Proposed Standard’ is not true for RFC 2454 which is marked in the RFC 
Editor pages as ‘

Historic
 (changed from Proposed Standard

 

June 2005

)’







 




I suggest to consider simplifying the document by dropping the current sections 2-6.If this issue was already debated and there was a strong demand from operators to republish the full MIB modules texts in a new RFC, I would be glad to look at some references. 




 


Regards,

Dan