Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Informative question: does this use the common snmp approach to handling v4/v6
addresses in mibs? The 0/4/16 address length object stands out.
Reviewed by Mary Barnes, Gen-ART
Draft is ready to publish as Proposed Standard with the correction of
the following editorial nits ( based on the assumption that it's been
reviewed/approved by MIB doctors and run through the MIB compilation
- Needs updating to new template reflecting RFC 3668/3667.
- Blank lines between authors in the document heading is not at all necessary.
- Section 2: Introduction: The 2nd sentence is quite awkward and I
would propose rewriting (at a minimum the word "which" should be
changed to "whose")
Along with Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC3471], the Link Management
Protocol [LMP], which primary purpose is to manage traffic engineering
(TE) links, is one of the key components of this stan dardization
to something like:
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) [RFC3471] and the Link Management Protocol
[LMP] are key components of this standardization activity. The primary
purpose of LMP is to manage traffic engineering (TE) links."
- Section 14.1 Normative References: Remove reference to RFC 2026 per
updates to template (curiously, RFC 3668 and 3667 are already listed
as references - do they really need to be as I've not seen this done
in other drafts?)