Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:54:52 +0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area

Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed

by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just

like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=BQMFAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=kNe-fJnoS_Eagzztuod4LVFw7OJ6s-ih-o2YM-xvFP4&s=7q6lQBnAbR4BsEU2p-U-LXSTbFz8uppNP68d4Ysxjiw&e=>

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02.txt

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 1/18/16

IETF LC End Date: 1/18/16

IESG Telechat date: (if known):

Summary:

Ready.

This document is an update that fixes a problem with RFC 7360 where MODULE-IDENTITY was defined as { snmpModules 235 } rather than { mib-2 235 } as advised by the MIB Doctors and recommended by IANA. The rest of the content is identical with RFC 7360.

Major issues:

There is a process issue that the IESG, IANA and the RFC Editor should check (maybe they already did it) in order to avoid such situations in the future. Is IANA involved in AUTH 48 last review of the document? If they are not, maybe they should be. In this case the MIB Doctors recommendation was implemented by IANA in the registry, but the content of the document was not fixed, and nobody at AUTH 48 discovered the problem.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: