I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this document. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please consider these comments along with any other last call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-sip-mib-11
Reviewer: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Date: August 9, 2006
Summary: Ready, a few nits.
In the eyes of someone who's not a SIP expert or a MIB expert, this
document seems in good shape!
Nits found:
- In section 5.2, the section on assigning applName to SIP entities is
consistently using RECOMMENDED and SHOULD, except this sentence:
"for any combination of Proxy, Registrar, or Redirect Server being
managed as a single aggregate entity, the applName value for the
combined server entity MUST reflect the appropriate combination
followed by a unique application instance identifier."
For consistency, perhaps use SHOULD?
The SIP-COMMON-MIB sipCommonCfgTable example on page 8 seems to have two rows
of inconsistent type. Formatting error?
The naming of the sipCfgTimer* values seems singularly uninformative :-)
IANA question: the IANA section directs IANA to assign 4 numbers under mib-2
for the 4 component MIBs. Is this common practice,
or does one want to use mib-2.sip.sipTC, mib-2.sip.sipCommonMIB and so on -
assigning one value for SIP mibs and indexing
the MIBs under that?
I'm happy with this either way, but would like to know that we're following
current practice....
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
