[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBD121F8C10; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eLVT7nvJXX5m; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A9221F8C0D; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93G2pZO029827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:02:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:02:50 -0500
Message-Id: <F652EB69-A187-43AA-82B9-34E263B87B77@nostrum.com>
To: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib.all@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 03 Oct 2011 15:59:58 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10	
Reviewer: Ben Campbell	
Review Date: 2011-10-03
IESG Telechat date: 2011-10-06

Summary: This draft may be ready for publication as a draft standard. All of the substantive comments from my last call review have been addressed either in the draft or in email. I do have one new concern below, but I am agnostic on whether that should affect publication.

Major issues: None


Minor issues: 

-- Section 7,  first paragraph: "During the review of this document, It emerged that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The Authors of that document and the VRRP working group were unable to reach consensus on which interpretation is correct." 

That's rather unfortunate, since that RFC specifies the protocol this MIB is _for_. I wish we could do better. From my limited knowledge here, I am agnostic as to whether the disagreement would make a substantive difference in the MIB. I put this in the "minor" section in hopes that it does not--but people more versed in the protocol should think about this.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- definition of "vrrpv3StatisticsRefreshRate"

s/milli-seconds/milliseconds