Comments on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-06

A.  Sec 1.1 Terminology.
1.  The scope of the MIB is  "Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private 
    Networks (VPN) that support multicast". This phrase appears 
    multiple times in the text. 
    It would be better to coin a term (eg L2/L3-VPN-MCast) for the 
    above in Sec 1.1 Terminology and use it in the text.

B.  TC-MIB
1   L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType enumeration order: 
    Is there any rationale behind the difference in ordering in 
    Sec 1.1 Terminology and the enumeration in the textual convention?
    Could these be aligned?

C.  L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
1.  DESCRIPTION
    The description states
    "This MIB module will be used by other MIB modules designed for
     managing multicast in Layer 2 (L2) VPNs [RFC7117] and
     Layer 3 (L3) VPNs [RFC6513], [RFC6514]"
     
    The statement differs from that in the abstract:
    "designed for monitoring and/or configuring both
    Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN) that support
    multicast."
     
    Please align the descriptions.
    [The description in the abstract appears more appropriate.]

2.  OID tree structure:
    Is there any particular reason to have the l2L3VpnMcastStates subtree?
    If no, then l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable can come directly 
    under l2L3VpnMcastObjects

3.  l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE
       DESCRIPTION
           "The tunnel identified by l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
            may be represented as an entry in other table, e.g,
            mplsTunnelTable [RFC3812]. 
    There must be some means to specify which "other table" table this 
    RowPointer points too unless it points to a single prespecified 
    Table (mplsTunnelTable).  

D.  Other issues:
    As far as the syntax and semantics of the MIB is concerned
    The review is pretty much done. 
    We will now try to review the design of the MIB from the 
    applicability, usability point of views.

1.  It is stated that this MIB will be used by other MIBs 
    "designed for monitoring and/or configuring both
    Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN) that support
    multicast."

    Is there a use case for this MIB? That would make it easier to 
    understand and review the applicability. 

2.  You are sure that notifications are not required ?
    
3.  You are sure that read-write and/or read-create operations are not 
    required for rows in l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable?

    Then the purpose of this MIB will be limited to 
         o provide a pointer to tables like ifXTable for further attributes 
         o provide a list of tunnels
    only? 


E.  Editorial issues
    A complete editorial review is TBD. 

1.  line 99: Typo?
    < BPG auto-discovery (A-D) routes.
    > BPG auto-discovery (A-D) routes.
2.  line 102: Typo 
    < This document defines a textual conventions (TC)
    > This document defines a textual convention (TC)                                
3.  line 134: nit
    < A PE uses to send
    > A PE uses it to send