Hi Benjamin,
Thank you very much for your thorough review and comments.
My replies are inline.
> Perhaps I'm confused, but "mvpnAdvtPeerAddr" appears in the security
> considerations in the list of address-related objects that may have
> privacy/security impact. That list is predicated on being "objects with a
> MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible", but all the instances of
> mvpnAdvtPeerAddr I found in the body text were marked as not-accessible.
> Similarly for mvpnMrouteCmcastGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs,
> mvpnMrouteNextHopGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs, and
> mvpnMrouteNextHopAddr.
I have received the advice from the MIB doctor on this matter and
I am going to update the draft along with the advice.
> (Incidentally, why ar mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs
> and mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs plural with the final 's'?)
For example, the DESCRPIPTION of mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs
says as follows.
"The network address which, along with the
corresponding mvpnMrouteCmcastSourcePrefixLength object,
identifies the sources for which this entry contains
multicast routing information."
Thus, this object identifies the (multiple) multicast sources, not a
single source.
Consequently, I prefer that the names of these objects are in plural form.
> Perhaps using subsections to separate the various tables' descriptions
> would aid readability.
Please let me confirm one thing.
I assume that you are talking about "Sec 3.1. Summary of MIB Module."
Do you mean that the description of each table should be in each
different subsection?
Or, do you mean that there should be one subsection including a set of
tables' descriptions?
Thanks in advance,
-- tsuno
2018-09-12 10:49 GMT+09:00 Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A general comment that we've been making on lots of documents in this
> space is that it would be nice to be in a place where the acronym "VPN"
> implies transport encryption. It's unclear that it's appropriate to request
> changes to this specific document toward that end, though.
>
> Perhaps I'm confused, but "mvpnAdvtPeerAddr" appears in the security
> considerations in the list of address-related objects that may have
> privacy/security impact. That list is predicated on being "objects with a
> MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible", but all the instances of
> mvpnAdvtPeerAddr I found in the body text were marked as not-accessible.
> Similarly for mvpnMrouteCmcastGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs,
> mvpnMrouteNextHopGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs, and
> mvpnMrouteNextHopAddr. (Incidentally, why ar mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs
> and mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs plural with the final 's'?)
>
> Perhaps using subsections to separate the various tables' descriptions
> would aid readability.
>
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
