On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:38:30AM +0900, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote:
> 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.

Excellent, I am sure the MIB doctor's advice is better than mine in this
matter.

> > (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.

Ah, thank you for the explanation.

> > 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?

I was thinking about each table having its own subsection.
In particular, when I was reading, it was easy for me to miss the comments
like "-- Table of PMSI information", especially when the comment was on a
different page from the actual MIB contents.  Having a section number might
make those boundaries more clear.

Thanks,

Benjamin

> 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

Reply via email to