I missed sending this to the gen-art list.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Martin Thomson <[email protected]> Date: 7 December 2011 11:46 Subject: GenART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-05 To: [email protected] Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-05 Reviewer: Martin Thomson Review Date: 2011-12-07 IETF LC End Date: ... IESG Telechat date: ... Summary: The document is mostly ready for publication as an informational RFC, but there are some minor issues that need to be addressed. Major issues: none Minor issues: - It's probably OK for an audience of MPLS & network management experts, but this document relies heavily on assumed knowledge. I found this draft to be nigh on indecipherable. I have no technical comments for that reason. - Reading through the introduction and gap analysis, it seemed like the intent of the draft is to outline requirements for MPLS-TP MIBs, not to describe the additions. It was a little surprising to see Section 6 launch straight into a definition of new branches, almost as if they already exist. If this is simply an initial outline, or a plan, or agreed requirements, then that could be made clearer. As it is, it reads as though it were a done deal. Later parts are clearer about this ("a new MIB module will be..."). Making this more consistently stated as requirements, promises or plans there is less confusion about existence, and fewer problems if the plan changes. - If the first paragraph of the security considerations is true, then this would be great. And that paragraph is then all that is necessary. The later paragraphs don't really add any value. Truisms (new MIBs will include security considerations), appeal for SNMPv3, and a description of access control best practice are not really needed. Do these new objects change the dynamics in a way that requires new operational practices? I suspect not. Nits/editorial comments: - This document has a very high density of acronyms, as well as other symbols. Providing expansions of acronyms on first use (e.g. FEC) and providing some context for less frequently used symbols would help casual readers. With such a high density, it might even be easier to use expansions by default for less commonly used labels. - Section 4.2.6 contains a number of strange, one-bullet lists. Try <list style="none"> if the intent is to indent these notes. If the intent is that these items are part of a larger list, then try sub-sections. - The diagram in Section 4.2.10 didn't help me understand the relationships at all. The text was much easier to follow. - Some references (RFC6370) need to be updated. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
