Subject: [imss] AD Review for draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-02.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:50:31 +0200

The document is mature and seems stable. As the comments in these review
are relatively minor or editorial, I recommend sending the document to
IETF Last Call, and consider these comments as LC comments, to be
processed and fixed (if necessary) together with other LC comments. 

T1. Should not the arrows for Get Policy Summary and Get Policy Objects
in the diagram in 3.4.4 be bi-directional? 

T2. The DESCRIPTION clause of the T11FcSpHashCalculationStatus TC -
'Writing a value of 'correct' or 'stale' to this object is an error
('wrongValue')." As a MIB module could in theory be used with other
protocols than SNMP a better formulation is 'Writing a value of
'correct' or 'stale' to this object is an error (SNMP 'wrongValue' or
the equivalent in other protocols)."

T3. Why is not T11FcSpAlphaNumName an SnmpAdminName with the appropriate
size limitation? 

T4. I do not see storage defined for t11FcSpPoOperTable and no
storageType object either

E1. Running idnits results in the following references warnings: 

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2837
     (Obsoleted by RFC 4044)

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-nn - is the
name
     correct?

  -- No information found for draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-nn - is
the
     name correct?

E2. Please expand the following acronyms at first occurrence: HBA, ESP,
SAID

E3. Delete the comment on the SYNTAX line of the T11FcSpPrecedence
definition

E4.  Does the notation INCITS xxx/200x mean that the x values need to be
filled in? In this case these values should be filled in until the time
the document is submitted for approval to the IESG, or appropriate RFC
Editor notes should be created to instruct the RFC Editor what to do. 

Dan

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