> Putting on the mib doctor hat, I ran smilint over the mib module as well > using faux oids, smilint reports clean. > Thanks for checking this. As Juergen pointed out there are some small issues in the MIB module which I will fix as soon as the WG LC has ended.
> > In the Security Considerations > section I had these comments: > > 1) To be clear, I interpret section 9.2 which states: > At the time of this writing, > to mean the date when the document is published. Yes, but IMHO this is obvious and does not require further clarification. > > 2) Per http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security > the boiler plate text to add here would be the clause starting with the > sentence “There are no management objects.” but would change > “textual conventions” to “oid value assignments" > Isn't that essentially the same statement as the current text in Section 9.4? The SNMP-USM-HMAC-SHA2-MIB module defines OBJECT IDENTIFIER values for use in other MIB modules. It does not define any objects that can be accessed. As such, the SNMP-USM-HMAC-SHA2-MIB does not, by itself, have any effect on the security of the Internet. > 3) There exist rfc normative references listed in the above url boilerplate > not included in the draft > typically used in rfcs containing mib modules. Well, if we use the text you referred to (“There are no management objects...” ), or even keep the current text in 9.4, no references are needed, right? -- Johannes _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
