Telechat Review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11
review-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11-intdir-telechat-hui-2015-11-20-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-12-01 | |
Requested | 2015-11-20 | |
Authors | Yong Cui , Jiang Dong , Peng Wu , Mingwei Xu , Antti Yla-Jaaski | |
I-D last updated | 2015-11-20 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -11
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -11 by DENG Hui (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Scott O. Bradner (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | DENG Hui |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 14) | |
Completed | 2015-11-20 |
review-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-11-intdir-telechat-hui-2015-11-20-00
Hi I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-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 softwire mesh solutions, and targets the Standards Track. Please find below review comments: 1) Page 5 in section 6.2, “The tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress MUST be set to 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 or :: for IPv6 because it is a point to multi-point tunnel.” It needs quotation mark for 0.0.0.0 and :: 2) In the MIB definitions, it needs REFERENCE for the IMPORT objects. eg: swmEncapsEIPDst OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The E-IP destination prefix, which is used for I-IP encapsulation destination looking up." ::= { swmEncapsEntry 2 } It should add a REFERENCE “E-IP and I-IP in RFC 5565 ”. The same comment for the definition of swmEncapsIIPDst. 3) In page 8, swmEncapsEIPDstType OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddressType MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object specifies the address type used for swmEncapsEIPDst. It is different from the tunnelIfAddressType in the tunnelIfTable." ::= { swmEncapsEntry 1 } It should list ipv4(1) and ipv6(2) in the DESCRIPTION for different scenario. Also it should add a REFERENCE to RFC 4001. 4) In page 8, SwmEncapsEntry: I think swmEncapsEIPDstType and swmEncapsIIPDstType should just be swmEncapsIPDstType and apply to both. If all address objects in the row are of the same type, you only need one type object. 5) In page 7, “Represents the tunnel type that the AFBR supports” in definition of swmSupportedTunnelType. It need a clarification that It represents the tunnel type used for softwire mesh scenario. 6) As it states in the section 6.1, the ifInucastPkts counts the number of IPv6 packets which are sent to the virtual interface for decapsulation into IPv4. I think it need some statistics objects to define for the softwire mesh such as the number of the connection tunnel when running point to multi-point tunnel. 7) Why not define a parameter for swmEncapsIIPDstPrefixLength? 8) In the swmEncapsGroup, there are only information about swmEncapsIIPDst and swmEncapsIIPDstType, why there are not swmEncapsEIPDst and swmEncapsIIPType and so on? Best regards, DENG Hui