Return-Path: 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:02:50 -0500 Message-Id: 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" , The IETF 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" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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=09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell=09 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:=20 -- 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."=20 That's rather unfortunate, since that RFC specifies the protocol this = MIB is _for_. I wish we could do better. =46rom 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