Subject: RE: draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2496bis-04.txt and draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2495bis-04.txt

From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:33:52 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Orly Nicklass wrote:
>  This is an update to TWO documents that are currently working
>  documents of the AToM MIB Working Group.
>  
>  Title: draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2495bis-04 .txt
[ ... ]
>  Title: draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2496bis-04 .txt

I have just finished reviewing these two drafts to see if all of the
review comments previously sent to the list have been properly
addressed.  Most have, but there are a few minor issues that still
remain unresolved.  My opinion is that the remaining issues should
be fixed before sending the document to the IESG for approval.

Starting with draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2495bis-04.txt:

1.) I-D Boilerplate -- OK

2.) Abstract -- OK

3.) MIB Boilerplate -- OK

4.) IPR Notices -- OK

5.) References -- one change wasn't made correctly and needs to be
fixed.  Please change:

[RFC2558]
     Tesink, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH
     Interface Type", draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-04.txt, work in
______________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     progress.
_____^^^^^^^^^
          ***********************************************************
          * NOTE TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication):*
          * If <draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-04.txt> (or its       *
_______________________________________________^
          * successor) is to be published as an RFC concurrently    *
          * with this document, please update this reference to     *
          * point to that RFC, instead of RFC 2558, and change      *
          * the reference tag [RFC2558] to match.                   *
          ***********************************************************

to:

[RFC2558]
     Tesink, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH
     Interface Type", RFC 2558, March 1999.
          ***********************************************************
          * NOTE TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication):*
          * If <draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-01.txt> (or its       *
          * successor) is to be published as an RFC concurrently    *
          * with this document, please update this reference to     *
          * point to that RFC, instead of RFC 2558, and change      *
          * the reference tag [RFC2558] to match.                   *
          ***********************************************************

As an alternative, you might want to wait for 2493bis and 2558bis to
be published and then update [RFC2493bis] and [RFC2558] to point to
the newly-published RFCs.  I believe that publication is imminent,
as the documents are now in AUTH48 review.

In any case, in the RFC Editor's note for [RFC2496], please update
the 2496bis I-D tag version from -04 to -05 (since a new version of
that document will also be required).

6.) Security Considerations Section -- OK

7.) IANA Considerations Section -- OK

8.) Copyright notices -- OK;  be aware, however, that the RFC Editor
will move the Full Copyright Notice to the very end of the document
and will make it an unnumbered section.  This will result in some
section numbers being changed, which could cause problems with any
section number references that may exist.   See Section 4 of
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt for RFC section ordering rules.

9.) MIB compilation -- OK

10.) Other issues (e.g., stuff in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
that is not covered above) -- that there are some lines that exceed
72 characters in Sections 1.1, 2.2.5 and in the MIB module itself,
although the latter will go away if the module indentation is
reduced from 10 spaces down to 3.  Since the RFC Editor can handle
this stuff, fixes for these things are at the author's discretion.
However, there is a heretofore-unnoticed "legacy" problem in
Appendix A that should be fixed by changing:

   When the "Old Definition" was created, it was described this way to
   allow a manager to treat the value _as if_ it were and ifIndex, i.e.
_______________________________________________________________________^
   the value would either be:  1) an ifIndex value or 2) a value that
   was guaranteed to be different from all valid ifIndex values.

to:

   When the "Old Definition" was created, it was described this way to
   allow a manager to treat the value _as if_ it were and ifIndex, i.e.,
   the value would either be:  1) an ifIndex value or 2) a value that
   was guaranteed to be different from all valid ifIndex values.

(add a comma after "i.e.").

11.) Technical content -- in the DESCRIPTION clause of dsx1LineType,
please change:
                     dsx1E1Q50      TS16 bits 5,7,8 set to 101, in
                                      to 111. all other cases it
                                      is set (ITU-T G.704,table 14)
to:
                     dsx1E1Q50      TS16 bits 5,7,8 set to 101 [in
                                    all other cases they are set to
                                    111].  (ITU-T G.704, table 14)

As far as I can tell, everything else is OK.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And now for draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2495bis-04.txt:

1.) I-D Boilerplate -- OK

2.) Abstract -- OK

4.) IPR Notices -- OK

5.) References -- two changes weren't made correctly and need to be
fixed.  Please change:

[RFC2495]
     Fowler D., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1 and E1
________________________________________________________^^^^^^^^^^
     Interface Types", RFC 2495, january 1999.

to:

[RFC2495]
     Fowler, D., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the DS1, E1,
     DS2 and E2 Interface Types", RFC 2495, January 1999.

and please change:

[RFC2558]
     Brown, T., and Tesink, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
_____^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     SONET/SDH Interface Type", RFC 2558, March 1999.
          ***********************************************************
          * NOTE TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication):*
          * If <draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-04.txt> (or its       *
_______________________________________________^
          * successor) is to be published as an RFC concurrently    *
          * with this document, please update this reference to     *
          * point to that RFC, instead of RFC 2558, and change      *
          * the reference tag [RFC2558] to match.                   *
          ***********************************************************

to:

[RFC2558]
     Tesink, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the SONET/SDH
     Interface Type", RFC 2558, March 1999.
          ***********************************************************
          * NOTE TO RFC Editor (to be removed prior to publication):*
          * If <draft-ietf-atommib-rfc2558bis-01.txt> (or its       *
          * successor) is to be published as an RFC concurrently    *
          * with this document, please update this reference to     *
          * point to that RFC, instead of RFC 2558, and change      *
          * the reference tag [RFC2558] to match.                   *
          ***********************************************************

As an alternative for the second item, you might want to wait for
2493bis and 2558bis to be published and then update [RFC2493bis]
and [RFC2558] to point to the newly-published RFCs.  I believe that
publication is imminent, as the documents are now in AUTH48 review.

In any case, in the RFC Editor's note for [RFC2495], please update
the 2495bis I-D tag version from -04 to -05 (since a new version of
that document will also be required).

6.) Security Considerations Section -- OK

7.) IANA Considerations Section -- OK

8.) Copyright notices -- OK;  be aware, however, that the RFC Editor
will move the Full Copyright Notice to the very end of the document
and will make it an unnumbered section.  This will result in some
section numbers being changed, which could cause problems with any
section number references that may exist.   See Section 4 of
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt for RFC section ordering rules.

9.) MIB compilation -- there is in enmbedded double quote in the
REFERENCE clause for dsx3LineType which causes the MIB compilation
to fail.  The fix is to change

                       European Telecommunications Standards Institute
                           -- ETS "34M" --
to:
                       European Telecommunications Standards Institute
                           -- ETS '34M' --

i.e., change the embedded double quotes to single quotes.

10.) Other issues (e.g., stuff in http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html
that is not covered above) -- there are some lines that exceed 72
in the MIB module itself, although this wll go away if the module
indentation is reduced from 10 spaces down to 3.  Since the RFC
Editor can handle this stuff, fixing this is at the author's
discretion.  However, there are two heretofore-unnoticed "legacy"
problems in Appendix A than can be fixed by changing:

   When the "Old Definition" was created, my understanding was that it
__________________________________________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   was described this way to allow a manager to treat the value _as if_
   it were and ifIndex, i.e. the value would either be:  1) an ifIndex
____________________________^
   value or 2) a value that was guaranteed to be different from all
   valid ifIndex values.

to:

   When the "Old Definition" was created, it was described this way to
   allow a manager to treat the value _as if_ it were and ifIndex, i.e.,
   the value would either be:  1) an ifIndex value or 2) a value that
   was guaranteed to be different from all valid ifIndex values.

(remove "my understanding was that" and add a comma after "i.e.").

11.) Technical content -- OK (apart from the easily corrected MIB
compilation issue noted above).

As far as I can tell, everything else is OK.

Mike