On Aug 29, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01 > Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen > Review Date: 8/29/2016 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-24 > IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01 > > Summary: Ready with nits. Note. I did not run these MIBs through > any verification tools. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: > * The document does not pass IDnits. The only complaint of IDnits that > I am concerned of is: > "** The document seems to lack an Introduction section." > > Anyway, if Motivation section is considered equivalent to > Introduction section then I am fine and the IDnits complaints > can be neglected all together.
That was my intention. > * Other MIB modules than IPV6-TC has in each their DESCRIPTIONs > text saying by what it was obsoleted. Unless I am missing something > here (that justifies the absence of disclaimers) I would like to see > similar text in each IPV6-TC DESCRIPTION as well. I overlooked that RFC2579 actually requires the same thing for textual conventions as RFC2578 requires for object revisions. Thanks for catching this. Bill _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
