Greetings, I have reviewed draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt, and I believe that the document is now ready to proceed to IETF last call. In particular, I have verified that all requested changes have been made (both the ones discussed in the presentation slides for the Vienna IETF and the ones recommended in previous reviews), and I have gone back through the MIB review checklist (Appendix A of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt>) to make sure that no new problems have been introduced. Here are the checklist results:
1.) I-D Boilerplate -- OK 2.) Abstract -- OK 3.) MIB Boilerplate -- OK 4.) IPR Notices -- OK 5.) References -- OK 6.) Security Considerations Section -- excellent, statements of vulnerabilities are well though out. 7.) IANA Considerations Section -- OK (none present and none required). 8.) Copyrights -- OK 9.) Other issues (i.e., stuff in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html other than MIB compilation issues) -- OK 10.) Technical content -- the MIB design appears to be sound, and the MIB compilation results from smilint and smidiff appear to be satisfactory. The results from smilint are as follows: This command (smilint 0.4.2-pre1, as of Tue Aug 05 15:58:53 2003) has been processed to get the following results: smilint -m -s -l 6 rfc2096-update-05.mi2 rfc2096-update-05.mi2:1060: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number `is-is' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 rfc2096-update-05.mi2:1061: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named number `es-is' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 rfc2096-update-05.mi2:203: [5] {index-element-no-size} warning: index element `inetCidrRoutePolicy' of row `inetCidrRouteEntry' should but cannot have a size restriction rfc2096-update-05.mi2:115: [5] {index-exceeds-too-large} warning: index of row `inetCidrRouteEntry' can exceed OID size limit by 527 subidentifier(s) rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipCidrRouteDest' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipCidrRouteMask' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipCidrRouteTos' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:517: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipCidrRouteNextHop' of row `ipCidrRouteEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipForwardDest' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipForwardProto' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipForwardPolicy' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB rfc2096-update-05.mi2:875: [5] {index-element-accessible} warning: index element `ipForwardNextHop' of row `ipForwardEntry' should be not-accessible in SMIv2 MIB Most of these diagnostics are from the deprecated parts of the MIB module and can be safely ignored. The ones that pertain to the new parts of the MIB modue are those for lines 115 and 203. The former warns that it is theoretically possible for the OIDs of column instances in inetCidrRouteEntry to exceed the 128 sub-identifier limit imposed by the SMI and the SNMP by as many as 527 subidentifiers. This is dealt with by the warning to implementors in the inetCidrRouteEntry DESCRIPTION clause that the aggregate size of the index components inetCidrRouteDest, inetCidrRoutePolicy, and inetCidrRouteNextHop must not exceed 111 components. The diagnostic for line 203 is just a warning that the object identifier-valued index column inetCidrRoutePolicy does not have a SIZE constraint. Since the SMI does not allow such constraints, this warning can and should be ignored. In other words, there are no problems revealed by the smilint report. The smidiff report, excluding diagnostics that are merely informational, is as follows: rfc2096-update-05.mi2:953 [3] {to-implicit} implicit type for `ipForwardPolicy' replaces type `Integer32' rfc2096-update-05.mi2:953 [3] {range-added} range `(0..2147483647)' added to type used in `ipForwardPolicy' rfc2096-update-05.mi2:594 [3] {to-implicit} implicit type for `ipCidrRouteTos' replaces type `Integer32' rfc2096-update-05.mi2:594 [3] {range-added} range `(0..2147483647)' added to type used in `ipCidrRouteTos' The objects in question are index objects that were originally not explicitly constrained to have non-negative values; however, this constraint is implicit, since index objects cannot be negative. Since these changes do not change the semantics they are considered to be editorial (see <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-02.txt> section 4.9). In other words, there is no problem. This concludes the review of draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2096-update-05.txt. Regards, Mike Heard -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
