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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Also, it looks like the [e-mail] alias has a bad address for the author:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original message was received at Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300
from vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]

  ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[e-mail]>
   (reason: 550 Host unknown)

  ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 5.1.2 <[e-mail]>... Host unknown (Name server: autorescheckpoint.nokia.com: host not found)
Reporting-MTA: dns; mgw-da02.nokia.com
Received-From-MTA: DNS; vaebh102.europe.nokia.com
Arrival-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300

Final-Recipient: RFC822; [e-mail]
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.2
Remote-MTA: DNS; autorescheckpoint.nokia.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Host unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23])
	by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p93G3W9w030833
	for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
	 Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:47 +0300
Received: from mx-da02.nokia.com ([147.243.142.137]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
	 Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:41 +0300
Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [194.146.105.14])
	by mx-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p93G3YeE032688
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:37 +0300
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.4 mx-da02.nokia.com p93G3YeE032688
Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:37 +0300
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: from nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net
	([2001:470:1f03:267::2]:58296 helo=nostrum.com ident=root)
	by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <[e-mail]>)
	id 1RAkzI-0000gn-KL
	for [e-mail]; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:03:29 +0200
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 [e-mail])
From: "ext Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:02:50 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail] Review Team" <[e-mail]>,
       The IETF <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
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)
X-Helo-Check-Failed: Verification failed for HELO nostrum.com
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:470:1f03:267::2
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: [e-mail]
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [e-mail]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
	merlot.tools.ietf.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_DYNAMIC,
	X_HELO_CHECK_FAILED,X_IPV6_ADDRESS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org)
Resent-To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
       [e-mail]
List-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-pstn-spam: N
X-Spam-Score: 0.00%
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 16:03:42.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[05D86270:01CC81E6]
 

On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> 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
> 
>