Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sip-mib-11.txt

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:25:21 -0700

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this document. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please consider these comments along with any other last call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sip-mib-11
Reviewer: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Date: August 9, 2006
Summary: Ready, a few nits.

In the eyes of someone who's not a SIP expert or a MIB expert, this 
document seems in good shape!

Nits found:

- In section 5.2, the section on assigning applName to SIP entities is 
consistently using RECOMMENDED and SHOULD, except this sentence:
       "for any combination of Proxy, Registrar, or Redirect Server being

      managed as a single aggregate entity, the applName value for the
      combined server entity MUST reflect the appropriate combination
      followed by a unique application instance identifier."

For consistency, perhaps use SHOULD?

The SIP-COMMON-MIB sipCommonCfgTable example on page 8 seems to have two rows of inconsistent type. Formatting error?

The naming of the sipCfgTimer* values seems singularly uninformative :-)

IANA question: the IANA section directs IANA to assign 4 numbers under mib-2 for the 4 component MIBs. Is this common practice,
or does one want to use mib-2.sip.sipTC, mib-2.sip.sipCommonMIB and so on - assigning one value for SIP mibs and indexing
the MIBs under that?

I'm happy with this either way, but would like to know that we're following current practice....

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