Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Fwd: Early MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 08:49:54 +0200

Copying the mib-doctors.

Thanks Dave.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Early MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03
Date: 	Sat, 5 Oct 2013 00:43:19 +0000
From: 	Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
CC: 	Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

Benoit asked me to do an early MIB doctor review of this document. My

full comments are in the marked up copy at

http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03.pdf 
<http://research.microsoft.com/%7Edthaler/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-03.pdf>

(there’s also a .docx version if you replace the .pdf extension with .docx)

I’ve also cc’ed the behave WG on this mail since many of my comments concern

the relationship between draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib  and the translation 
parts of

this draft.

A short summary of the high level issues in my review is:

1)The doc is not aligned with draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib.  It currently 
continues

some practices that we’re trying to deprecate as discussed in section 3.1 of

draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib.

2)Boilerplate needs to be updated to match latest MIB boilerplate (see 
inline

comments for pointers).

3)Any InetPortNumber object allowing 0 needs to explain what 0 means in that

object, as required by RFC 4001.

4)Draft currently requires write support in all implementations. Recommend

having a read-only compliance statement since nowadays many folks don’t

want write support via MIBs.

-Dave