Hi Miguel,
I think IANA owns the MIB module.
You're right, we should chase IANA to make sure they understand what to do.
Lou, can you ping them?
A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:08 AM
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03.txt
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-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]>
Review Date: 04-Feb-2010
IETF LC End Date: 05-Feb-2010
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: The document is ready for publication as a Standards track RFC.
Nits/editorial comments:
The document is well written and very clear. My only concern lies in
Section 4.1, last paragraph:
It should be noted that the assigned value should be reflected in
IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib.
So, I don't really know if IANA needs to modify the MIB, or someone needs
to modify the MIB and uploaded to IANA, or nothing is supposed to happen
here. I noticed in the I-D tracker that IANA is not planning to take any
action with respect the MIB, is this the authors' intention?
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
