I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other
last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq%3E>.
Document: draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-05.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2016/05/06
IETF LC End Date: 2016/05/16
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Ready with a couple of editorial nits.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
The suggestions for the Abstract, s1 and s1.1 are intended to clarify
the relationship to RFC 7466 in the introductory text (the later
comments in the MIB itself are more than adequately clear about this!)
Abstract:
OLD:
In particular, it
describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood
Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router.
NEW:
In particular, it
describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood
Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router. The extensions
described in this document adds objects and values to support the
NHDP optimisation described in RFC 7466.
END
s1:
OLD:
In particular, it describes objects for configuring
parameters of the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood
Discovery Protocol (NHDP) [RFC6130] process on a router.
NEW:
In particular, it describes objects for configuring
parameters of the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood
Discovery Protocol (NHDP) [RFC6130] process on a router. The
extensions
described in this document adds objects and values to support the
NHDP optimisation described in [RFC7466].
END
s1.1:
It might be worth adding a list of the changes since it is short and
they are a bit buried:
I think they are:
- Addition of objects nhdpIib2HopSetN2Lost and
nhdpIfPerfCounterDiscontinuityTime.
- Addition of extra value (notConsidered) to nhdp2HopNbrState.
- Revised full compliance state.
s4: We don't normally leave IPR statements in finished documents -
Probably best to leave a RFC Editor instruction to delete the section
before publication.
s7.3, para 2: The referent of 'this table' is not totally clear:
s/this table/the nhdpInterfaceTable/
s8, top of page 13 - DESCRIPTION below CONTACT INFO, last para:
OLD:
This version of this MIB module is part of RFC 6779; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices."
NEW:
This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices."
s10, para 1: There are weasel words here:
A fuller discussion of MANET network
management use cases and challenges will be provided elsewhere.
Has this now happened? If so a reference would be desirable. Otherwise
maybe
A full discussion of MANET network
management use cases and challenges is beyond the scope of this
document..
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
