Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11

"Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> Mon, 30 November 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47601B2F6D; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:59:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GfpKkI4GSwBN; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2FA1B2F5D; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:59:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5605; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1448899187; x=1450108787; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=I122iLoRGHE3rflOvdCNpXpk0G6TyBQ5ABX6YjYDm2I=; b=jCufeMtnFGDyj9dEMvXvteYK7zUA0xYgUFguP+FZVhphRFB8x+CFJMBV khQ1AR3fPBY62vwNjNvH8py1xtb7rEdG9EWA0apBRzdwgoE25+DlcYkKR crjfVW4fkjnLVaqDa6HRutPs0BYtsQWFlycxWjl8KbldMqLKZOyvbwaRn I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C9AgAvcVxW/5ldJa1egztTbwa+KA6BZ?= =?us-ascii?q?iGFbgKBMTgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEDAXIHBQcEAgEIEQMBAQEBJwcyFAkIAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?OBQ6IGAgNujkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPCYhkgm6Ee4MpgRUFkm+Da?= =?us-ascii?q?AGCXYFiaogOgVtJg3mDJo8sg3EBHwFDhARyAYRpgQcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,364,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="211931440"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2015 15:59:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAUFxi6A017025 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:59:44 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:59:43 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:59:43 -0600
From: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
To: Yu Fu <fuyu@cnnic.cn>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
Thread-Index: AQHRHZtjbrNNhDyRIUm/c0AyRKkxK56ufriAgAa67IA=
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:59:43 +0000
Message-ID: <46B954BB-24D8-4ED5-A553-9187A4C6D8E8@cisco.com>
References: <5053E81C-A6AF-4398-949F-CBE045F537EA@cisco.com> <001601d1282a$adc71d20$09555760$@cn>
In-Reply-To: <001601d1282a$adc71d20$09555760$@cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-pgp-agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.129.24.61]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A6905AAC-EDCB-4954-991E-F96400D4D3D4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/GW6zd-oHpPO_9GZdXltIoGTZ-xI>
Cc: "draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.all@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:59:49 -0000

The changes look good to me, and address all of my nits.


Thanks Yu!

--
- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 02:13, Yu Fu <fuyu@cnnic.cn> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> Thanks for your review. All the nits have been corrected in the updated
> version.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> BR
> Yu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Miller (mamille2) [mailto:mamille2@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:42 AM
> To: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.all@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
> Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
> Reviewer: Matthew Miller
> Review Date: 2015-11-12
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-15
> IESG Telechat date: N/A
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document is ready to be published as a Standards Track RFC, but with
> nits that ought to be addressed before publication.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> * Note that draft-perrault-behave-natv2-mib is now RFC 7659; the reference
> should be updated when (if) this document is updated.
> 
> * In section 4. "Relationship to the IF-MIB", "(physical or virtual)has an
> ifEntry"
> is missing a space between "virtual)" and "has".
> 
> * In section 5. "Difference from the IP tunnel MIB and NATV2-MIB", the fifth
> paragraph was difficult for me to understand at first.
> Assuming I understood the idea being expressed, maybe the following is
> better:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>   In the DS-Lite scenario, the Address Family Transition Router (AFTR)
>   is not only the tunnel end concentrator, but also a 4-4 translator.
>   So as defined in [RFC6333] , when the IPv4 packets come back from the
>   Internet to AFTR, the AFTR knows how to reconstruct the IPv6
>   encapsulation by doing a reverse lookup in the extended IPv4 NAT
>   binding table.  So the NAT binding table in the AFTR MUST be extended
>   to include the IPv6 address of the tunnel initiator.  But the tunnel
>   information defined in NATV2-MIB is on the address level.  Because
>   the TUNNEL-MIB defined the objects on the view of interface, the DS-
>   Lite-MIB need define the tunnel objects to extend the NAT binding
>   entry by interface for accordance.  Therefore, a combined MIB is
>   necessary.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>   In the DS-Lite scenario, the Address Family Transition Router (AFTR)
>   is not only the tunnel end concentrator but also a 4-4 translator.
>   As defined in [RFC6333], when the IPv4 packets come back from the
>   Internet to the AFTR, it knows how to reconstruct the IPv6
>   encapsulation by doing a reverse lookup in the extended IPv4 NAT
>   binding table.  The NAT binding table in the AFTR MUST be extended
>   to include the IPv6 address of the tunnel initiator.  However, the
>   tunnel information defined in NATV2-MIB is on the address level.
>   Because the TUNNEL-MIB defined the objects on the view of interface
>   rather than the address, the DS-Lite-MIB needs to define the tunnel
>   objects to extend the NAT binding entry by interface.  Therefore, a
>   combined MIB is necessary.
> 
> * In section 6. "Structure of the MIB Module", "a" should be added between
> "in" and "DS-Lite" in the sentence "The DS-Lite MIB provides a way to
> monitor and manage the devices (AFTRs) in DS-Lite scenario through SNMP."
> 
> * In section 6.1.1. "The dsliteTunnel Subtree", "DS- Lite" should be
> "DS-Lite".
> 
> * In section 6.1.1., the phrasing of "some objects defined in the IP Tunnel
> MIB are not read-write and read-only" is confusing to me.  I'm not sure this
> means "are not read-write but are read-only" or "are not readable" (which
> there's a definition in section 9); are one of these interpretations
> correct?
> 
> * In Section 9. "Security Considerations", the phrase "even then" seems to
> be superfluous, and can be removed.
> 
> * In section 10. "IANA Considerations", "IP Tunnel MIB[RFC4087]" should be
> "IP Tunnel MIB [RFC4087]".
> 
> 
> --
> - m&m
> 
> Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
> 
> 
>