Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base
RFC 4802

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

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-28 for -)
No email
send info
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14

Section 1., paragraph 2:
>    Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at
>    ccamp@ops.ietf.org.

  Remove.


Section 1.1., paragraph 2:
>    LSRs may be migrated to be modeled and managed using the MIB modules
>    in this document in order to migrate the LSRs to GMPLS support, or to
>    take advandtage of additional MIB objects defined in these MIB

  Nit: s/advandtage/advantage/


Section 4.2., paragraph 10:
>    - Optionally specifying segment traffic parameters in the
>      MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RCF3813].

  Nit: s/[RCF3813]./[RFC3813]./


Section 6., paragraph 10:
>       -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accsesible column.

  Nit: s/accsesible/accessible/


Section 7., paragraph 55:
Section 7., paragraph 57:
Section 7., paragraph 72:
Section 7., paragraph 74:
>        "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)."

  Nit: s/unidrectional/unidirectional/


Section 9., paragraph 7:
>    if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even

  Nit: s/IPSec),/IPsec),/


Section 10., paragraph 0:
>     10. Acknowledgments

  Nit: Typically after IANA considerations.


Section 10., paragraph 2:
>    This document extends [RFC3813].

  "Extends" as in "updates?" If so, must reflect in
  headers/abstract/intro.


Section 11., paragraph 3:
>    New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in
>    [RFC2434].

  Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 1867, but not
  defined

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10

Section 1., paragraph 3:
>    Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at
>    ccamp@ops.ietf.org.

  Nit: Remove.


Section 3., paragraph 23:
>         For manually
>         configured bidirecitonal LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be

  Nit: s/bidirecitonal/bidirectional/


Section 5., paragraph 3:
>    New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in
>    [RFC2434].

  Nit: Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 274, but not
  defined

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-15

Section 1.1., paragraph 2:
>    LSRs may be migrated to model and manage their TE LSPs using the MIB
>    modules in this document in order to migrate the LSRs to GMPLS
>    support, or to take advandtage of additional MIB objects defined in

  Nit: s/advandtage/advantage/


Section 8., paragraph 185:
>         If the value of
>         gmplsTunnelErrorLastErrorType is protocol (2) the error should
>         be interpreted in the context of the signling protocol

  Nit: s/signling/signaling/


Section 8., paragraph 198:
>          The notification rate applies to the sum
>          of all notificaitons in the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB and

  Nit: s/notificaitons/notifications/


Section 9., paragraph 7:
>    if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even

  Nit: s/IPSec),/IPsec),/


Section 12.1., paragraph 22:
>    [GMPLSTCMIB] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Definitions of Textual
>                 Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
>                 Management", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, work in
>                 progress.

  Nit: 'GMPLSTCMIB' is defined on line 2850, but not referenced

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-30)
No email
send info
COMMENT:

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt

     DESCRIPTION
       "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX."
     ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX }
-- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and
-- remove this note.

-- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA
-- and remove this note


The intention is I believe:

     ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY }

Also:

     DESCRIPTION
       "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX."
     ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX }
-- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and
-- remove this note.

-- RFC Editor. Please replace ZZZ above with the OID assigned by IANA
-- and remove this note

should rather be: 

    ::= { mplsStdMIB ZZZ }

in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt

       -- This MIB module is contained in the OID sub-tree
       -- rooted at mplsStdMIB.
       "Initial version published as part of RFC XXX."
   ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX }

-- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and
-- remove this note.

-- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA
-- and remove this note

should be:

  ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY }

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection