Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01
review-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-08-29-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-08-24 | |
| Requested | 2016-08-10 | |
| Authors | Bill Fenner (ˢˣˠ) | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-08-29 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by
Jouni Korhonen
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Taylor Yu (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-08-29
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 02) | |
| Result | Ready with Nits | |
| Completed | 2016-08-29 |
review-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-08-29-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01 Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen Review Date: 8/29/2016 IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-24 IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01 Summary: Ready with nits. Note. I did not run these MIBs through any verification tools. Major issues: None. Minor issues: * The document does not pass IDnits. The only complaint of IDnits that I am concerned of is: "** The document seems to lack an Introduction section." Anyway, if Motivation section is considered equivalent to Introduction section then I am fine and the IDnits complaints can be neglected all together. * Other MIB modules than IPV6-TC has in each their DESCRIPTIONs text saying by what it was obsoleted. Unless I am missing something here (that justifies the absence of disclaimers) I would like to see similar text in each IPV6-TC DESCRIPTION as well. Nits/editorial comments: * Line 2223 has unnecessary linefeed/empty line.