Subject: [BEHAVE] [behave] #15: DThaler comments on nat-mib-06

From: "behave issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:39:09 -0000

#15: DThaler comments on nat-mib-06

 1) Section 5 of the current draft has
 " Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., objects with a
    MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
    vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus important to
    control even GET and/or NOTIFY access to these objects and possibly
    to even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them over
    the network via SNMP."

 Per http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security
 that's supposed to be followed with
 " These are the tables and objects and their
    sensitivity/vulnerability:

     <list the tables and objects and state why they are sensitive>"

 Also the document has 2 paragraphs of text "There are a number of managed
 objects in this MIB that may contain ...
 versions of SNMP provide features for such a secure environment."
 which do not appear in the current MIB boilerplate at the link above.
 Should those 2 paragraphs be removed?

 2) Section 5 contains MUST, SHOULD, etc.   But the document is missing
 the boilerplate reference to RFC 2119.

 3) Section 6 does not say whether any additional actions for IANA are
 needed.  Suggest adding "No IANA actions are required by this document."

 4) The MIB compiler I used complained about this:
 > natMappingPool OBJECT-TYPE
 >     SYNTAX NatPoolId (0|1..4294967295)
 Because of
 > NatPoolId ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
 >     SYNTAX Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)

 That is, NatPoolId does not allow 0, and so natMappingPool cannot add it
 and still use the NatPoolId syntax.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-behave-nat-
  [email-masked]  |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  nat-mib      |    Version:  -06
 Severity:  In WG Last   |   Keywords:
  Call                   |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/ticket/15>
behave <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/>

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:43:11 +0200

Meta-comment: I would prefer if we don't make use of the issue tracker 
for this draft. I already have my process for tracking issues, so this 
just makes my job a bit more tedious. Thanks.

>   Should those 2 paragraphs be removed?

Fixed in my local copy.

>   the boilerplate reference to RFC 2119.

Added.

>   needed.  Suggest adding "No IANA actions are required by this document."

Added.

>   and still use the NatPoolId syntax.

Fixed.

Simon

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:07:48 +0000

As document shepherd, I want to make use of the issue tracker.
It benefits the chairs and the WG by seeing what we're still waiting for before submitting to the IESG,
and what was addressed in what previous version of the doc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: behave issue tracker; [email-masked]; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [behave] #15: DThaler comments on nat-mib-06

Meta-comment: I would prefer if we don't make use of the issue tracker for this draft. I already have my process for tracking issues, so this just makes my job a bit more tedious. Thanks.

Fixed in my local copy.

Added.

Added.

Fixed.

Simon
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave