Ethernet Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base (MIB)
RFC 5603

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

Comment (2008-07-16 for -)
No email
send info
Part of the comments are based on the MIB Doctor review performed by Orly Niklass. 

1)

Old:

interfaces that are later associated tp PWs is not handled via this MIB module.                           

NEW:

interfaces that are later associated to PWs is not handled via this MIB module.
 
Change tp/to  but maybe the word with is better here.

2) 

OLD:

entries. If the set of entires of a specific
                                                                     ^

NEW:

entries. If the set of entries of a specific

Change entires/ entries

 
3) 

OLD:

"glues" the standard modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

NEW:

"glues" the standard native version modules to the PWE3 MIB modules.

add 'native version' 

4) 

OLD:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB framework is the PW MIB module

Change for consistency to 

NEW:

The next layer of the PWE3 MIB structure is the PW MIB module

 
5)
 

There is

     ---
     --- Conformance description
     ---
 
     pwEnetGroups      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 1 }
     pwEnetCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pwEnetConformance 2 }
 
 

 

Normally (as listed in RFC4181) we order then with
    Compliances first and then Groups. 
 
       xxxMIB
       |
       +-- xxxNotifications(0)
       +-- xxxObjects(1)
       +-- xxxConformance(2)
           |
           +-- xxxCompliances(1)
           +-- xxxGroups(2)

6) 

In the Security Considerations section: 

   o  the pwEnetTable contains objects to provision Ethernet PWs.
      Unauthorized access to objects in these tables, could result in
      disruption of traffic on the network.  The use of stronger
      mechanisms such as SNMPv3 security should be considered where
      possible.  Specifically, SNMPv3 VACM and USM MUST be used with any
      v3 agent which implements this MIB module.  Administrators should
      consider whether read access to these objects should be allowed,
      since read access may be undesirable under certain circumstances.

Two problems here: 
- the security threat resulting from intentionalor unintentional mis-configuration of the obects in the pwEnetTable should be explicitly stated, as the consequences may be partial or total loss of service for customers connected through the PW which i smore than just disruption of traffic. 
- The should in the second phrase SHOULD be capitalized

(Mark Townsley) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2008-07-12 for -)
No email
send info
  Please remove the following before publication as an RFC:
  >
  > Comments should be made directly to the PWE3 mailing list at
  > pwe3@ietf.org.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection