Hi, Elwyn: Thanks. Please check my comments.
s3: WLAN is defined but no expansion of the acronym is given. [Editors] It (WLAN) is got from the RFC5416 and the RFC5416 does not give any expansion of the acronym. The issue here is: If we give an expansion to the WLAN (in the RFC5416), readers would be confused with the WLAN (wireless local area networks) in the IEEE 802.11. You know: The RFC5416 talks about WLAN as a logic service, while the IEEE 802.11 talks about it as certain network. Dan or CAPWAP chairs, please give some guidance here. Thanks. s5.1: Possibly define/expand PHY. [Editors] How about: would use “physical layer (PHY)”in the place where it (PHY) first appear. During the review of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06.txt, a same issues Ever be raised. In the end, it was suggested to use the above way to modify. Suggest to keep same. s5.2, next to last bullet: s/manage/management/ [Editors] Yes, should be management s5.3, last sentence; expand BSS acronym [Editors] Yes, should be "basic service set (BSS)". s7.2: The paragraph > Also, the AC MUST have a mechanism that preserves the value of the > WLAN Profile Interfaces' ifIndexes in the ifTable at AC reboot. > is duplicated (last and last but 2). [Editors] Although both sentences talk about the persistence mechanism of the interface, the first one is for WLAN Profile Interface, and other one is for WLAN BSS Interfaces. So it is not duplicated. Please check it again. Thanks. s8: The IP addresses should be taken from the 'example' ranges (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iana-ipv4-examples-01). I don't know that there is an example MAC address - the RFC Editor should know. [Editors] Ok, I never knew it before. The Ip would use the blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1). I have not found any block (RFC document rules) for MAC address, so I suppose RFC Editor should know it. For Ip address, draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06.txt has a same issue and should be modified too. s9: Maybe WLAN and BSS should be expanded here in the descriptions as well. [Editors] Yes, BSS is ok. According to my comments to the s3, it requires more discussion. Regards Richard -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2009年12月13日 6:57 收件人: General Area Reviwing Team 抄送: Mary Barnes; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 主题: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-05.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-05.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 12 December 2009 IETF LC End Date: 7 December 2009 IESG Telechat date: (if known)= Summary: Ready for the IESG. There are a few editorial nits noted below (the example IP addresses need to be fixed). Major issues: - Minor issues: - Nits/editorial comments: s3: WLAN is defined but no expansion of the acronym is given. s5.1: Possibly define/expand PHY. s5.2, next to last bullet: s/manage/management/ s5.3, last sentence; expand BSS acronym s7.2: The paragraph > Also, the AC MUST have a mechanism that preserves the value of the > WLAN Profile Interfaces' ifIndexes in the ifTable at AC reboot. > is duplicated (last and last but 2). s8: The IP addresses should be taken from the 'example' ranges (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iana-ipv4-examples-01). I don't know that there is an example MAC address - the RFC Editor should know. s9: Maybe WLAN and BSS should be expanded here in the descriptions as well. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
