Subject: Renaming the GMPLS TED/OSPF MIB

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:31:59 -0000

Tomo,

As discussed in San Diego, could you please resubmit 
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-mib-01.txt as 
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-00.txt

This trivial piece of house keeping will keep us honest going forward.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:13:29 +0100

I had a look at this I-D (the word MIB caught my eye:-) and it would seem to
have some way to go, at least from an editorial point of view. eg
 - the introduction isn't quite English as I know it to the point where I am
unsure if I know what is being said about the role of this MIB module vis-a-vis
others
 - no MIB boiler plate
 - IANA considerations do not mention being under the transmission branch (is
that the right place for this?)
 - use of transmission 9988 as a placeholder
 - module name 'TED-DRAFT01-MIB '!
 - no normative references
...........

all of which and more is covered in RFC4181.  I would suggest a check by the
authors against that RFC before taking this further.  I also get some strange
characters such as little black blobs at the turn of every page.

I am also unclear where the I-D uses 'OSPF' whether it now means only OSPF or
whether it means all such protocols and has not been updated to reflect the
change of title ie I suggest looking carefully at all uses of 'OSPF' by itself
and only using that when OSPF alone is meant.

And when I understand the English better, I expect I will disagree on a
technical basis as well - eg  [OSPFMIB UPDATE] (a rather clumsy reference IMO)
does not update [OSPFMIB], it supersedes it so I suspect that there should be a
normative reference to the former and no mention of the latter; in which case
the reference could be to RFCyyyy.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:56:51 -0000

Hi Tom,

Yes, the I-D is indeed at an early stage with a lot of work remaining to be 
done.

I'm sure that Tomo will be grateful for all of your pointers.

Adrian

---

From: Tomohiro Otani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:08:46 +0900

Hi Tom and Adrian,

Thank you for your comments on our draft.
We understand that we need a lot of work for the -01 draft
and definitely reflect your comments.

With best regards,

Tomo

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Yes, the I-D is indeed at an early stage with a lot of work remaining to 
> be done.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>