Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib-03
review-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib-03-genart-lc-thomson-2014-08-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-08-22
Requested 2014-08-11
Authors Jürgen Schönwälder , Anuj Sehgal , Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) , Cathy Zhou
I-D last updated 2014-08-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Martin Thomson
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2014-08-12
review-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib-03-genart-lc-thomson-2014-08-12-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib-03
Reviewer: Martin Thomson
Review Date: 2014-08-11
IETF LC End Date: 2014-06-22
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready.

Nits/editorial comments:

Looks like the first paragraph of the Security Considerations was left
hanging.  I looked and this sentence is a little confusing, since all
the MAX-ACCESS attributes are the same.

I'm not sure that this is something that would concern me either.
Sure, SNMP provides an attacker a great feedback loop if they want to
learn what is going on, but that is something you trade off against
things like being able to do things like maintenance and all that
necessary stuff.