Another open issue is that the email address for Chris Elliott
in this draft is wrong and needs to be corrected ...
The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
[email protected] on 11/25/2009 7:43 PM
The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did
not report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it
still fails, contact your system administrator.
< sj-inbound-d.cisco.com #5.0.0 smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown
address error 550-'5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown' (delivery
attempts: 0)>
Thanks,
--David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:43 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Dan (Dan) Romascanu; [email protected]
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06
>
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06
> Reviewer: David L. Black
> Review Date: November 25, 2009
> IETF LC End Date: December 7, 2009
>
> Summary:
> This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described
> in the review.
>
> Comments:
> This draft defines a MIB for the CAPWAP protocol. It also extends
> that protocol, which is a peculiar thing to do in a MIB document.
> I've left review of the actual MIB definitions to the expertise
> of the MIB Doctors.
>
> The important open issues that need to be resolved are tagged
> with [*].
>
> [*] Intended document status is now Informational. That needs to
> be changed on the title page, but more importantly, someone
> (draft shepherd?) should double-check whether the requested
> IANA allocations are appropriate for an Informational document.
> If there's a problem here, the IESG should be warned that a
> process exception may be needed, as I think the allocations are
> necessary for this draft.
>
> [*] I see lots of editorial problems in the text prior to the
> MIB definitions, most of which are not called out in this review.
> I strongly suggest an editorial pass by a native speaker of
> English prior to IESG Review. Here's an example from Section
> 5.6 - the use of the word "conception" is incorrect in this phrase:
> the protocol of [RFC5416] defines WLAN conception
> A better word would be "creation".
>
> Terminology section:
> - Add a definition of PHY, it's undefined in this document.
> - Add a definition of WLAN, while it's defined elsewhere, WLAN
> is a crucial concept for this draft and hence needs a
> definition here.
> - The definition of station (STA) is sufficiently general to
> include WTPs. Was that intended?
>
> Section 5.1 should explain the division of management of a
> WTP between the actual CAPWAP protocol and this MIB. The
> first bullet creates this confusion, and that bullet is not
> consistent with the first bullet in 5.4. That lack of
> consistency should be corrected in addition to providing
> the explanation.
>
> Section 5.4: "The ifIndex [RFC2863] is used as a common handler"
> I don't think it's a "handler". The ifIndex is actually an index.
>
> [*] The text in Section 5.7 attempts to modify RFC 5415. That's
> not a good idea for an Informational document. It is ok to
> say that if the additional requirements are not followed, this
> MIB will not be useful or usable.
>
> [*] Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a
> MIB draft? MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the
> protocol that they provide management for. This section, and
> the changes in Section 5.7 ought to be in a separate draft
> that could be standards track.
>
> Appendix A (change history) should include a request to the
> RFC Editor to remove it before publication of the RFC.
>
> idnits 2.11.15 found a couple of nits:
>
> == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378
> work, but was
> first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add
> the disclaimer?
> (See the Legal Provisions document at
> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).
>
> == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
> draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-04
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ----------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748
> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
> [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
