Hi, Qin Wu
Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions.
Please see my reply inline
>I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
>ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
>These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
>aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
>may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors
>and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
>comments. This draft defines MIB for MAP-E for use with SNMP. It is well
>written and I have no concern on operational aspects. Here are a few
>editorial comments as follows: 1. Please remove unused reference
>RFC7598.
[fuyu] The RFC7598 is referenced by the definition of RuleType
>2. Section 4.1, the 1st paragraph, last sentence Can you list
>which parts of the IF-MIB in more details here the MAP-E depends on?
[fuyu] Yes, I will update it in more detail as : "MAP-E MIB is configurable
on a per-interface basis, so it depends on several parts of the IF-MIB
by ifEntry [RFC2863]".
>3.Section 4.1.1 two categories on mapping rules In MIB module definition, it
>looks the mapping rule is divided into three categories, i.e., BMR, FMR and
>BMRandFMR,which is not consistent with two categories classification
>defined in section 4.1.1, I am wondering whether we also have fmrandbmr,
>i.e., Forwarding Mapping Rule can also be basic Mapping Rule, in other
>words, is fmrandbmr same as bmrandfmr? Is fmrandbmr a set that belong
>to both fmr and bmr? Try to understand this, would it be great to clarify
>this in section 4.1.1.
[fuyu] In the section 5 of RFC7597, it defines two types of mapping rules:
Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) and Forwarding Mapping Rule (FMR). So we should accord
with
this definition in RFC7597.
And in the section 4.1 of RFC7598, it defines F-flag to specify whether the
rule is to be used
for forwarding (FMR). If set, this rule is used as an FMR; if not set, this
rule is a
BMR only and MUST NOT be used for forwarding. And a BMR can also be used as
an FMR for forwarding if the F-flag is set.
So in the RuleType definition, it defines bmrAndfmr to specify this scenario.
I will update a description as above in section 4.1.1.
>4.Section 4.1.2 two kind of invalid packets In MIB
>module definition, two MapSecurityCheckEntries are defined, one is
>mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4, the other is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4. I am
>wondering whether these two entries are corresponding to two kind
>of invalid
>packets described in section 4.1.2. also I am not sure I understand payload
>source IPv4 address and port, are these payload source and port are
>referred to received packets’ source IPv4 address port mentioned in
>section 4.1.2.
[fuyu] Yes, two kind of invalid packets In MIB module definition is
mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4
and mapSecurityCheckInvalidv6, which are corresponding to two kind
of invalid packets described in section 4.1.2. I will update a clarify in the
MIB definition.
>5.Section 6 does this document request IANA to assign new OID under
>mib-2 or just use existing OID under mib-2?
[fuyu] It request IANA to assign a new OID.
Thanks again for your review
Cheers
Yu
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
