Subject: [ipcdn] Re: REVIEW:draft-ietf-ipcdn-qos-mib-10.txt

From: "Michael A. Patton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:52:26 -0500 (EST)

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
   Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:41:16 +0100 

   Quick initial question:

     Did you review revision 10 or revision 11?

   Revision 10 was used for IETF Last Call, but comments from AD
   (myself) and IETF Last Call caused a revision 11 to be issued
   on Jan 27.

My bad.  This review was against -10, I had started it during LC and
failed to notice that there was a new version on the telecat agenda.
I am editting the review to be relevant to -11 and will send it
shortly...  I did take a quick glance at the diffs on potaroo and
didn't see anything obvious to comment on, but the change to every MIB
variable makes it hard to see other changes.

   W.r.t.
   > [see "not a MIB expert" disclaimer] The top level MODULE-IDENTITY
   > seems to have 2 DESCRIPTIONs, shouldn't they be combined?
   Do you meand this: [...]
Yes, you figured me out!
   Then I can explain [...]

That explanation certainly fits my "not an expert".  It just looked
wierd as I scanned the doc.  But I accept that explanation, it makes
sense.

   W.r.t.
   > Section 1.1: "described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [1], STD 58, RFC 2579 [2]
   > 	and STD 58, RFC 2580 [3]." seems a bit awkward, I would have
   > 	written it as "described in STD 58: RFC 2578 [1], RFC 2579 [2]
   > 	and RFC 2580 [3]."
   > 

   This comes straigth from the required MIB boiler-plate.

OK.  It still seems slightly clearer to me in the second form, but if
the first is established practice that's fine.  It's only a suggetion
that occurred to me.  Note that the summary says "ready to go" and
this was just under "suggestions"...

_______________________________________________
IPCDN mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn