Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:37:38 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd 
or AD before posting a new version of the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: January 17, 2010
IESG Telechat date: January 21, 2010

Summary:
This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described
in the review.

Comments:
This draft defines a MIB for the CAPWAP protocol.  It also extends
that protocol in support of the MIB, which is an unusual thing to
do in a MIB document.

The authors have resolved all of the other comments from the original
Gen-ART review, but have left this open issue for potential IESG
consideration.  The original Gen-ART review asked:

	Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a
	MIB draft?  MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the
	protocol that they provide management for.

That is still an open issue.  I suggest that IESG discussion of this
is appropriate - as is the case with IESG Discuss comments, this
suggestion should not be mis-read as an inflexible demand for a change.

idnits 2.11.17 ran clean aside from asking whether a disclaimer for
pre-RFC5378 work is required - such a disclaimer does not appear to
be required.

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