Skip to main content

Management Information Base for Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) Cable Modem Termination Systems for Subscriber Management
draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-16

Yes

(Bert Wijnen)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Steven Bellovin)
(Thomas Narten)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-09-27)
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART

His review:

Document seems ready, a couple of small nits:

1) Shouldn't the Security Considerations come before the references?
2) For the references, there is text that says the following:

        ************************************************************
        * NOTES TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication) *
        *                                                          *
        *     The I-D <draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-06.txt> (or a *
        * successor) is expected to eventually replace RFC 2669.   *
        * If that draft (or a successor) is published as an RFC    *
        * prior to or concurrently with this document, then the    *
        * normative reference [RFC2669] should be updated to       *
        * point to the replacement RFC, and the reference tag      *
        * [RFC2669] should be updated to match.                    *
        *                                                          *
        ************************************************************

Shouldn't the I-D just be referenced? Some of these references
seem that they should reference the I-D, not the RFC.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-09-22)
  The 2nd paragraph of Section 9 says:
  :
  : Effective network filtering of TCP traffic requires that implementors
  : MUST follow the recommendations in section 3.2.6.
  :
  I suggest replacement text:
   
    For network filtering of TCP traffic to be effective, implementors
    MUST follow the recommendations in section 3.2.6.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2004-09-24)
I have to say that I think the v4-only nature of this doc is pretty questionable; I understand
that the document is relative to DOCSIS deployments which don't deploy v6, but this
is starting them down a design road that is going to require more than a little backtracking.
The whole mechanism presumes that use of multiple address is a wrong/restricted
activity; this isn't the right focus for v6.  Rather than working out some management 
framework than can handle both, they could end up with such separate things that
the user experience is affected by the overlapping attempts at control (or the
attempts to control are frustrated trivially).

I'm not DISCUSSing this document, since it is clear on its scope, but I strongly encourage
them to create a joint v4/v6 management scope as a successor to this, rather than
a v6 auxillary to this.
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()