Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08
review-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08-secdir-lc-salz-2016-03-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2016-03-08
Requested 2016-02-25
Authors Vinay Shankarkumar , Laurent Montini , Tim Frost , Greg Dowd
I-D last updated 2016-03-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Rick Casarez (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Rich Salz
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2016-03-03
review-ietf-tictoc-ptp-mib-08-secdir-lc-salz-2016-03-03-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's  ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat  these comments just like any
other last call comments.

Summary: ready with nits.

This is a read-only MIB.  I didn't realize that until the end.  PLEASE put that
in the abstract.  Perhaps replace "objects for managing networks" to "objects
for monitoring networks"

Also the abstract talks about SNMPv2 and v1.  Why are those mentioned?  And why
called out in the abstract as important?  Perhaps add "For backward
compatibility," at the start of that last sentence.

The security considerations sections seem fine.
--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
IM: richsalz at jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz