Dear Glenn,
Thank you very much for your thorough review.
I have greatly appreciated it.
I am going to check and update the draft taking into
account your comments.
I try to submit the updated draft by the end of next week.
Best regards,
-- tsuno
2017-05-01 12:32 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <gl...@cysols.com>:
> Dear Tsuno/Zhang
> Thanks for waiting. The review of
> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07 follows.
>
> Glenn
>
> C1. Abstract:
> The draft now defines 2 MIB modules. Please revise the abstract
> and probably the title of the document too.
>
> C2. The MIBs (L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB, L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB) compile OK.
> (Three {type-unref} warnings are there, may be ignored.)
>
> C3. Page 4:
> s/3. Summary of MIB Module/
> 3. Summary of MIB Modules/
>
> C4. Page 6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
> s/"Denotes a pointer to the row pertaining to a table entry/
> /"This textual convention represents a pointer to a row in
> the table represented by the following object of type
> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType./
>
> C5. Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
> The explanation in the last paragraph seems out of place.
> It may be removed.
>
> C6 Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType DESCRIPTION
> it is unclear when the value 'null(0)' will be used.
> Is this allowed only when the corresponding object of type
> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer has a value that is a
> zero-length string ? If yes, please make that clear.
>
> C7. Page 9: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable DESCRIPTION
> s/created by a PE router/maintained by a PE router/
>
> C8. Page 12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
> Do you really want to keep this object in L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.
> It will change every time a new "tunnel type" is added to
> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType. That will defeat the purpose
> of separating L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB from L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
> It may be a good idea to define a textual convention like
> L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
> in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB and use that textual convention
> in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
>
> C9. Page 13: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId DESCRIPTION
> A. s/Thus, the size of this object is 16 octets in IPv4/
> Thus, the size of this object is 8 octets in IPv4/
> B. The last 2 paragraphs do not tie up well with the previous
> paragraphs in the DESCRIPTION.
> C. In the last paragraph
> "this object is a pair of source and group IP addresses"
> is unlcear. Please clarify.
>
> C10. Page 15: Security Considerations
> I would think that any field that reveals information about
> a Multicast VPN and/or its members is sensitive.
> Does the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId field reveal
> information about the participating members? If yes, it must
> be marked as sensitive.
>
> C11. Editorial:
>
> A. This does not pertain to the MIBs as such,
> but I am uncomfortable with the several variations
> of the phrase
> "Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN)
> that support multicast"
> that appears in the text. I do not have a solution
> on hand but it would be perhaps be more readable to
> define and use a simple name/notation the beast for
> which the MIB is being designed (e.g. "L2L3VPNMCast").
>
> B. Same with the phrase
> "Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 3 (L3) VPN (Virtual Private
> Network)
> it would be probably be easier on the reader if an
> abbreviation like L2L3VPNs was used where ever
> applicable.
>
> C12. P2:Para4: s/within MIB module specifications//;
>
> C13. General:
> A. The DESCRIPTION clauses could do would some more
> packing. (Too much space at the end of lines)
> B. Please check the articles a/an/the once again. Some
> usages do not seem right to me.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
