These are some general documentation/MIB Doctor comments
on draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-02.txt.  They may well
be incomplete, as I have not attempted to go through the
entire MIB review checklist.  Note that several substantive
technical comments were posted in a previous message and
are not duplicated here.

1.)  It should be noted in the abstract that the document
obsoletes RFC 2096.

2.)  Please use the current mib boilerplate and
references from http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html

3.)  Please update the security considerations section
per http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html

4.)  Please split normative/informative references.  I would
suggest the [RFC2119] style instead of the numbered style,
as it is easier both to read and to maintain.  When you do
this make sure that there is a normative reference for each
MIB module that you IMPORT from (this is often overlooked).

5.)  You have numbered a lot of sections that should not
be numbered.  See http://www.ietf.org/IESG/IDNITS.html
or http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html (they are the same).

6.)  When the document is published as an RFC, it should
have a change log section detailing what was changed since
RFC 2096 (it could point to the most recent REVISION clause
if the latter were a bit more detailed).  On the other hand,
the changes between I-D versions should not appear.

7.)  Please remove Unsigned32 from the IMPORTS list since
it is not used.

8.)  Please update the LAST-UPDATED and most recent REVISION
clauses to the current date.

9.)  Please use 4-digit year format in all older REVISION clauses,
and mention the RFC in which the revision appeared.  You should
probably add a REVISION clause corresponding to the RFC 1354
version (it introduced the now-obsolete ipForwardTable).

10.)  Please add a copyright notice to the MODULE-IDENTITY
DESCRIPTION clause, as mandated by
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/MIB-COPYRIGHT.txt,
and update _all) copyright dates to the current year
(the one on the front page still says 2001).

11.)  I notice that ranges have been added to ipForwardPolicy and
ipCidrRouteTos index variables to ensure that they are non-negative.
That's not actually required by the SMI, and, strictly speaking,
it is not a legal revision.  It is probably acceptable since it
cannot possibly change anything on the wire, but another solution
would be to leave these as-is and turn off the the strict checking
in your SMICng include file (#removeOpt "B").

12.)  Please do not use numbered references in the body of the
MIB module (such as the ones in the DESCRIPTION clauses of
inetCidrRouteDestType, inetCidrRouteDscp, and inetCidrRouteNextHopType).
These turn into "dangling pointers" when the MIB module is extracted
from the RFC (as it always will be when it is used).

13.)  The row object inetCidrRouteEntry admits dynamic creation of
instances but contains neither a StorageType column nor a statement
in its DESCRIPTION clause as to the fate of rows created by management
applications upon an agent re-initialization.  You must provide one or
the other;   in this case a statement in the DESCRIPTION clause that
dynamically created rows survive an agent reboot is probably what you
want.

14.)  The DESCRIPTION clause for the status column inetCidrRouteStatus
does not say whether or not read-create rows can be modified when the
status value is active(1).  This is required by RFC 2579 (see the
DESCRIPTION clause of the RowStatus TC).  If the rules vary from one
column to another, you should specify in each read-create column's
DESCRIPTION clause whether or not it can be modified when the status
is active(1), and the inetCidrRouteStatus DESCRIPTION clause should
say that each read-create column's DESCRIPTION clause states whether
or not that column may be modified while the status is active(1).

//cmh

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to