Management Information Base for Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) Cable Modem Termination Systems for Subscriber Management
RFC 4036

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.

(Bert Wijnen) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-27 for -)
No email
send info
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART

His review:

Document seems ready, a couple of small nits:

1) Shouldn't the Security Considerations come before the references?
2) For the references, there is text that says the following:

        ************************************************************
        * NOTES TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication) *
        *                                                          *
        *     The I-D <draft-ietf-ipcdn-device-mibv2-06.txt> (or a *
        * successor) is expected to eventually replace RFC 2669.   *
        * If that draft (or a successor) is published as an RFC    *
        * prior to or concurrently with this document, then the    *
        * normative reference [RFC2669] should be updated to       *
        * point to the replacement RFC, and the reference tag      *
        * [RFC2669] should be updated to match.                    *
        *                                                          *
        ************************************************************

Shouldn't the I-D just be referenced? Some of these references
seem that they should reference the I-D, not the RFC.

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-24 for -)
No email
send info
I have to say that I think the v4-only nature of this doc is pretty questionable; I understand
that the document is relative to DOCSIS deployments which don't deploy v6, but this
is starting them down a design road that is going to require more than a little backtracking.
The whole mechanism presumes that use of multiple address is a wrong/restricted
activity; this isn't the right focus for v6.  Rather than working out some management 
framework than can handle both, they could end up with such separate things that
the user experience is affected by the overlapping attempts at control (or the
attempts to control are frustrated trivially).

I'm not DISCUSSing this document, since it is clear on its scope, but I strongly encourage
them to create a joint v4/v6 management scope as a successor to this, rather than
a v6 auxillary to this.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-22 for -)
No email
send info
  The 2nd paragraph of Section 9 says:
  :
  : Effective network filtering of TCP traffic requires that implementors
  : MUST follow the recommendations in section 3.2.6.
  :
  I suggest replacement text:
   
    For network filtering of TCP traffic to be effective, implementors
    MUST follow the recommendations in section 3.2.6.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection