Hi, Dave, Thanks so much for your review. We are working on your comments and will make an update version in one or two week time. When the new version ready, we will write to you privately for confirmation whether your comments have been properly addressed.
Best regards, Sheng From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 8:43 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Benoit Claise; [email protected] Subject: [Softwires] Early MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03 Benoit asked me to do an early MIB doctor review of this document. My full comments are in the marked up copy at http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03.pdf (there’s also a .docx version if you replace the .pdf extension with .docx) I’ve also cc’ed the behave WG on this mail since many of my comments concern the relationship between draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib and the translation parts of this draft. A short summary of the high level issues in my review is: 1) The doc is not aligned with draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib. It currently continues some practices that we’re trying to deprecate as discussed in section 3.1 of draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib. 2) Boilerplate needs to be updated to match latest MIB boilerplate (see inline comments for pointers). 3) Any InetPortNumber object allowing 0 needs to explain what 0 means in that object, as required by RFC 4001. 4) Draft currently requires write support in all implementations. Recommend having a read-only compliance statement since nowadays many folks don’t want write support via MIBs. -Dave
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
