Telechat Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
review-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2015-11-20-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-12-01 | |
Requested | 2015-11-20 | |
Authors | Yu Fu , Sheng Jiang , Jiang Dong , Yuchi Chen | |
I-D last updated | 2015-11-20 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -11
by Matthew A. Miller
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) Genart Telechat review of -12 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Derek Atkins (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -11 by DENG Hui (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Carlos Pignataro |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2015-11-20 |
review-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2015-11-20-00
Hi, I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html . This document defines MIB objects to manage DS-Lite solutions, and targets the Standards Track. Please find some minor review comments: 5. Difference from the IP tunnel MIB and NATV2-MIB Notes: According to section 5.2 of [RFC6333], DS-Lite only defines IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels at this moment, but other types of encapsulation could be defined in the future. So this DS-Lite MIB only supports IP in IP encapsulation, if another RFC defined other tunnel types in the future, this DS-Lite MIB will be updated then. CMP: Should the above say that this only supports IPv4-in-IPv6? The implementation of the IP Tunnel MIB is required for DS-Lite. The tunnelIfEncapsMethod in the tunnelIfEntry should be set to dsLite("xx"), and a corresponding entry in the DS-Lite module will exist for every tunnelIfEntry with this tunnelIfEncapsMethod. The tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress must be set to "::”. CMP: Might be useful to add that this is because the tunnel is not point-to-point. dsliteAFTRAlarmConnectNumber OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Integer32 (60..90) MAX-ACCESS read-write CMP: Has this been checked? https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html 9. Security Considerations There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. CMP: I only saw one read-write and no read-create. Are there “a number of …”? 12.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, < http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119 >. CMP: Why is RFC 2119 Informative? I hope these are useful! Thanks, — Carlos. Attachment: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail