Subject: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:28:47 -0400

Orly,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-00.txt
.

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other
Last Call comments you may receive.

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.

Section 3.4 says:

3.4.  DS1 Terminology

   The terminology used in this document to describe error conditions on
   a DS1 interface as monitored by a DS1 device are based on the late
   but not final document of what became the ANSI T1.231 standard
   [ANSI-T1.231].  If the definition in this document does not match the
   definition in the ANSI T1.231 document, the implementer should follow
   the definition described in this document.

The ANSI T1.231 standard has been complete for a while now:

[ANSI-T1.231]
     American National Standard for Telecommunications -- Digital
     Hierarchy -- Layer 1 In-Service Digital Transmission Performace
     Monitoring, T1.231.02, October 2003.

Nit: "Performace" is missing an "n" in that reference.

If the terminology cannot be aligned (and I would not change terms
in the actual MIB definition solely for alignment), specific differences
from T1.231 terminology should be explained in subsections of Section
3.4, and the warning about differences from T1.231 either removed
or revised to say that any significant differences are explained in
the definitions that follow.

I see that a MIB Doctor review has been performed on this MIB and
hence have not reviewed the actual MIB definitions.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Orly Nicklass" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:26:18 +0200

Will do.
Thanks for the careful review. 
Orly

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 16:29
To: Orly Nicklass; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: GenART review of draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-00.txt

Orly,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-00.txt
.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be fixed before publication.

Section 3.4 says:

3.4.  DS1 Terminology

[ANSI-T1.231]

If the terminology cannot be aligned (and I would not change terms in
the actual MIB definition solely for alignment), specific differences
from T1.231 terminology should be explained in subsections of Section
3.4, and the warning about differences from T1.231 either removed or
revised to say that any significant differences are explained in the
definitions that follow.

I see that a MIB Doctor review has been performed on this MIB and hence
have not reviewed the actual MIB definitions.

Thanks,
--David