see inline.
8/29/2016, 2:45 PM, Bill Fenner kirjoitti:
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.
Ok. WFM if it also works for others in the publication process.
* 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.
Good.
- Jouni
Bill
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
