Skip to main content

ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks
draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-05

Yes

(David Kessens)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)

Abstain

(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

David Kessens Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2006-05-25) Unknown
1. In many places in the document the construct 'MIBs' is being used. The expression that is recommended is 'MIB modules'. I suggest to do a search and replace wherever relevant. For example in 6.2.6.2: 

OLD:
   The current DOCSIS, PacketCable, and CableHome MIBs are already
   designed to support IPv6 objects.  
NEW:
   The current DOCSIS, PacketCable, and CableHome MIBs are already
   designed to support IPv6 objects. 

2. In 6.2.6.2 the following phrase shows up:

OLD:
   An object to
   identify the IP version, InetAddressType has been added to all the
   appropriate SNMP objects related to IP address.

I suggest that a better way to describe this change is:

NEW: 
The Textual Convention used to represent SMIv2 objects representing IP addresses was updated [RFC4001] and a new Textual Convention InetAddressType was added to identify the type of the IP address used for IP address objects in MIB modules. 

3. Section 6.2.6.2 refers to several MIB modules. I suggest to add appropriate Informative References to the documents where these MIB modules are being defined. 

4. Sections 7.6, 8.6 and 9.5 include the following sentence:

OLD:
The management stations are located on the core network. 

The notion of a management station is not well defined. Also the phrasing may be interpreted as having a physical topology implication. I suggest:

NEW:
The management applications are running on hosts belonging to the NSP core network domain. 

5. Fig 8.2.1 - replace 802.1q by 802.1Q

6. Section 10.6 includes:

OLD:
   Conceptually network management in PLC Networks should be similar to
   Broadband Ethernet Networks as described in section 8.6.  Although
   there could be a need to develop some PLC specific MIBs.

While this is probably true, the need to define MIB modules is not related to IPv6 Network Management and this is not what this section should really focus on. I suggest: 

NEW:
  The issues related to IPv6 Network Management in PLC networks should be similar to those discussed for Broadband Ethernet Networks in section 8.6. Note that there may be a need to define MIB modules for PLC networks and interfaces, but this is not necessarily related to IPv6 management.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2006-05-25) Unknown
  s/IPSec/IPsec/

  s/come form/come from/
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain () Unknown