Subject: [Softwires] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:05:00 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- section 5.1, first two sentences:
The text can be interpreted to mean the subtree is the mechanism for that
negotiation. I assume that's not the intent?

-5.1, last sentence:
I don't understand; what different tunnel?

-8, paragraph 6:
Do the 2119 keywords in this paragaph represent new requirements
specified in this draft, or do they describe existing requirements from
SNMPv3? If the latter, please use descriptive language rather than 2119
keywords.

-5.1, Third sentence:
Missing article before "Softwire mesh framework...".

---

From: Dong Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:14:43 +0200

Dear Ben,

Thank you for the comment. We will make these sentences clearer:

[Jiang] The subtree is not responsible for negotiation. We will revise the
statement.

-5.1, last sentence:

[Jiang] We want to explain that the encapsulation information (e.g., L2TPv3
Session ID, GRE Key, etc.) is not managed in the softwire mesh MIB. We will
revise the statement.

-8, paragraph 6:

[Jiang] These are some requirements specified in this draft.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Jiang Dong