Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 19:59:09 -0000

Hi authors of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib,

I am doing my AD review of this document having received the publication
request. The purpose of my review is to clear up any issues that might
otherwise show up during IETF last call or IESG review.

During my review I have found a number of minor issues with the MIB
module. I don't think any substantially change the definitions, but I do
think that some editorial work is needed. I believe there will be knock-
on editorial changes to draft-ietf-bfd-mib, but nothing of substance
that will impact that document.

I will put this document into "Revised I-D State", but I would be happy
to discuss any of these points if you think that changes are not needed.

Thanks for the work.

Adrian

===

Tom may want to update his coordinates.

---

I think the Abstract should note that the TCs defined here are maintained
by IANA as this is an important feature.

BUT...

I don't see why all of these TCs are in an IANA module. It seems that a
number of them would not be updated by IANA upon the allocation of new
protocol code points. I believe the following should be moved to their
own module and out of the IANA module...

IANAbfdSessIndexTC                                                            
IANAbfdIntervalTC
IANAbfdMultiplierTC
IANAbfdCtrlDestPortNumberTC (unless you propose to define explicit
                             enumerations)
IANAbfdCtrlSourcePortNumberTC

I am suspicious of some of the other TCs as well. Really, an IANA
module should be used for TCs that mirror registries. Do the other
TCs actually mirror registries? If so you should say which. If not,
then you should probably move them out of the IANA module as well.

---

Could you swap Sections 1 and 2 so that the document begins with the
Introduction.

---

A number of TCs could usefully have Reference clauses so that the
meaning of the TC is more clearly understood.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:13:53 -0500

Adrian,

A brief followup - I'm sure the authors will have comments of their own:

> then you should probably move them out of the IANA module as well.

Since this happened as part of last minute review, it's no surprise that
this wasn't quite done correctly.

Is your preference to have a separate draft for this separation or could
both TC MIBs occur in the same document?

I suspect once this detail is settled, the remainder of your changes should
happen in short order.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:36:16 -0000

Hi Jeff,

> this wasn't quite done correctly.

Yeah. No criticism.

> both TC MIBs occur in the same document?

It's fine to have one document containing two MIB modules:
1. The generic BFD TC MIB module
2. The IANA BFD TC MIB module

I would put the whole of 2 in the IANA Considerations section.

> I suspect once this detail is settled, the remainder of your changes should

Excellent.

Review of the BFD module is coming soon.

Adrian

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:54:54 -0500

> Tom may want to update his coordinates.

	Yes, we will update.

> then you should probably move them out of the IANA module as well.

	Yes this is correct. I think we missed this in the last round of reviews that focused on getting things assembled in the right order/way.  This should be fixed. 

	--Tom

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:56:40 -0500

> both TC MIBs occur in the same document?

	While its been done both ways, I hope it would be sufficient at this point to have a separate module within the same draft.  The biggest issue with that approach is making sure the ordering is done such that automated tools that extract the MIBs from the draft/RFC document have things ordered properly so as to just work. 

	--Tom