Hi Don! Thanks for all of the changes. I snipped all of the text where the -04 addressed the issue. A few more comments below.
I'm advancing the document to IETF LC. > -----Original Message----- > From: IPsec <ipsec-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 2:27 PM > To: ipsec@ietf.org WG <ipsec@ietf.org> > Subject: [IPsec] AD Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-03 > ** Section 4.2. Surround the MIB module with '<CODE BEGINS>' and '<CODE > ENDS>' lines [don] are we doing this anymore? The practice seems to have > disappeared with YANG. I don't see this in any MIBs I can add but I don't > see an > example. I thought that's what we were doing but this is a minor editorial matter that that RFCEditor can help us with at the very end. > ** Section 6. > Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT > RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to > enable cryptographic security. > > Given the IPTFS is new functionality and isn't likely to be added to legacy > codebases or devices constrained to SNMPv1 is possible, could this read that > SNMPv3 is required? > [don] We used the suggested text that was supplied from WG AD review. I > think this is kind of boiler plate. It must have been Ben who provided this feedback during an earlier AD review? Ah, I see what you mean by boilerplate per https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/mib-security. It has been a while since I processed a MIB module. Roman _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
