The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] review of draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-05.txt
Here is my review - compiles clean. Thanks!! - introduction s/a MIB/a MIB module/ - the reference for RFC2119, that is [21] does not show up in the references. TO be consistent, you may want to make it [RFC2119] - need to add an IPR section as per RFC2026 Section 10 Such is needed for all stds track documents) - Although you do explain in comments that IANA needs to assign a number, it probably will make things go easier, if you repeat that in an IANA Considerations Section, in which you list that IANA needs to assign a number under the transmission subtree. - references need to be split in nromative and informative - Just a note that MIB Boilerplate will prbably change in the next week or so. It is much shorter, so that is good (I think) - mplsBitRate is still pretty strange, as discussed at the meeting on Saturday 16th, I think you know how to change it to be clearer In any event, it is probably better to use an Unsigned32, cause a negative value seems to make no sense at all. - MplsOwner. As I explained at the meeting, I may still not be clear on what the text says. I think the "In all other respects" sentence seems to say that an operator may delete rows (entries) that have been created by other methods. Operator may do so via SN MP or OTHER methods. But operator is not supposed to make changes to rows created by other methods. Did I get that? If so, can it be made clearer? If not... then certainly it needs to be made clearer - MplsLsrIndex Mmm... in which MIB module is this used? - MplsTunnelIndex Probably better to make the base type Unsigned32 (1..65535) that is also more consistent with the MplsTunnelIndexOrZero Thanks, Bert |
|