John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Routing AD comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08 ## COMMENTS ### Section 4.2 You have "TFS bit rate may be specified at layer 2 wire rate" and "TFS bit rate may be specified at layer 3 packet rate". Shouldn't that be "as", not "at"? I did go looking for insight in ipsecme-yang but it just made me think that document has the same (looks to me like a) bug. ### Section 6 I'm a little mystified why "For the implications regarding write configuration" considering this is a read-only MIB? (Which the very next paragraph goes on to say.) The same applies a few paragraphs down where you talk about "who on the secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this MIB module" -- isn't it really just who can GET (read) the objects? And the same for the "Further" bullet point. ## NITS - s/paccket/packet/ _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
