Re: [Gen-art] Mail regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
Much better. I have one very small suggestion: in the very last paragraph, the one about Mgmt, is the last sentence relevant? It would feel better to me just to stop with This document does not define Management.. But that's aesthetics -- IMHO this version is much better and my comments are satisfied. Scott ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2011-05-10 IETF LC End Date:2011-05-11 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard. I have a few editorial comments that might be worth considering, but probably should not block publication. Note: I am inexpert both in MIB definitions and in VRRP. I assume this has (or will be) reviewed by experts in both. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- idnits complains about an obsolete normative reference: Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2338 (Obsoleted by RFC 3768) I see why you have the 2338 reference--but does it need to be normative? -- General: There's some odd formatting--no space between page header and body for pages 2 on. (I reviewed the PDF version, not sure if the TXT version is the same or if this is a PDF rendering issue.) Does it make sense to use 2119 language in MIB object descriptive text? That will often show up outside the context of the draft, and therefore without the 2119 language definitions. I don't know what the convention is--I just point it out so others more used to MIBs can think about it. -- section 3: You've got the 2119 boilerplate twice. -- section 7: Please put blank lines between list entries -- section 9, vrrpv3OperationsPrimaryIpAddr Is primary the correct term here? Seems like addresses would be master and backup, or primary and secondary. Master and primary sounds odd. -- vrrpv3OperationsUpTime It's probably worth describing the time interval unit in the text, as you did for the previous interval in centiseconds. -- vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus The description talks about how to use the RowStatus variable, but does not describe what it represents in the first place. --vrrpv3StatisticsProtoErrReason No discontinuity comment? -- vrrpv3StatisticsRefreshRate s/milli-seconds/milliseconds Also, You might want to mention the time interval unit in the description. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09
[The tools alias for the draft resulted in a bounce from kalyan.t...@autorescheckpoint.nokia.com. Resending to include the author's address as listed in the draft.] I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2011-05-10 IETF LC End Date:2011-05-11 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard. I have a few editorial comments that might be worth considering, but probably should not block publication. Note: I am inexpert both in MIB definitions and in VRRP. I assume this has (or will be) reviewed by experts in both. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- idnits complains about an obsolete normative reference: Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2338 (Obsoleted by RFC 3768) I see why you have the 2338 reference--but does it need to be normative? -- General: There's some odd formatting--no space between page header and body for pages 2 on. (I reviewed the PDF version, not sure if the TXT version is the same or if this is a PDF rendering issue.) Does it make sense to use 2119 language in MIB object descriptive text? That will often show up outside the context of the draft, and therefore without the 2119 language definitions. I don't know what the convention is--I just point it out so others more used to MIBs can think about it. -- section 3: You've got the 2119 boilerplate twice. -- section 7: Please put blank lines between list entries -- section 9, vrrpv3OperationsPrimaryIpAddr Is primary the correct term here? Seems like addresses would be master and backup, or primary and secondary. Master and primary sounds odd. -- vrrpv3OperationsUpTime It's probably worth describing the time interval unit in the text, as you did for the previous interval in centiseconds. -- vrrpv3OperationsRowStatus The description talks about how to use the RowStatus variable, but does not describe what it represents in the first place. --vrrpv3StatisticsProtoErrReason No discontinuity comment? -- vrrpv3StatisticsRefreshRate s/milli-seconds/milliseconds Also, You might want to mention the time interval unit in the description. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt
Please see attached review. I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2011-05-11 IETF LC End Date: 2011-05-12 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Almost ready Minor issue: The Introduction says: As there has come into existence at least one ICE option, there is need to create the registry. Maybe a reference for that option would be useful. In fact, I wonder if this draft shouldn't just define that option as the initial content of the new registry? This is certainly not essential, so the draft could proceed as it is.___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
