The document is in good shape, it compiles cleanly and passes idnits checks.
I have a few editorial comments: 1. I do not believe that it is necessary to carry all the duplicated text in the MIB module as commented text, as it does not provide any significant implementation information. 2. It would be good to mention in the TC definition or by using the REFERENCE clause that the enumerated values replicate the values defined respectively in tables 1 and 2 of [RFCPROT]. 3. The document carries the standard security considerations section for documents defining Textual Conventions. This text states correctly that the TCs themselves do not introduce security concerns, but in this case most probably objects defined by using these TCs will. To be on the strict side I would add a phrase that says 'Objects defined using the TCs defined in this document may introduce security issues, and the user of these TCs should read the security considerations section of [RFCPROT].' Dan _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
