MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <019d01ccdf97$65fc6fc0$31f54f40$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <019d01ccdf97$65fc6fc0$31f54f40$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:00:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV5knowLRKrF1_CMeBF3uiN9Ygaw4ZqATM1a1zKGFk9XA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: kkoushik@cisco.com, gen-art@ietf.org, scott.mansfield@ericsson.com,
 aldrin.ietf@gmail.com, "Ryoo, Jeong-dong" <ryoo@etri.re.kr>,
 akarmaka@cisco.com, venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART Review of
 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-05
Precedence: list

Hi Dan,

Looks good to me.  -06 is good to go from my perspective.

--Martin

On 30 January 2012 13:37, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> Thank you for your review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview-0=
5. We have endeavoured to address your comments in our new version (06 atta=
ched). The comments that had specific actions or required updates are summa=
rised below. If you can email me (us) back to let us know you are happy or =
unhappy with our updates it would be appreciated.
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 1: It's probably OK for an audience of MPLS & networ=
k management experts, but this document relies heavily on assumed knowledge=
.=C2=A0 I found this draft to be nigh on indecipherable.=C2=A0 I have no te=
chnical comments for that reason.
>
> DK: Ok.
>
> MT =E2=80=93 =C2=A0Comment 2: Reading through the introduction and gap an=
alysis, it seemed like the intent of the draft is to outline requirements f=
or MPLS-TP MIBs, not to describe the additions.=C2=A0 It was a little surpr=
ising to see Section 6 launch straight into a definition of new branches, a=
lmost as if they already exist.
>
> DK: This OID structure is proposed in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-01. We ha=
ve clarified the text for Section 6 to include =E2=80=9CThe MPLS-TP MIB OID=
 tree as proposed in [MPLS-TP-TE-MIB] has the following structure:=E2=80=9D
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 3:=C2=A0 If this is simply an initial outline, or a =
plan, or agreed requirements, then that could be made clearer.=C2=A0 As it =
is, it reads as though it were a done deal.=C2=A0 Later parts are clearer a=
bout this ("a new MIB module will be...").=C2=A0 Making this more consisten=
tly stated as requirements, promises or plans there is less confusion about=
 existence, and fewer problems if the plan changes.
>
> DK: Absolutely, where relevant the text now reads =E2=80=9Cwhere addition=
al MIB modules are necessary=E2=80=9D and/or =E2=80=9CA new MIB module is r=
equired to=E2=80=9D, or equivalent.
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 4: If the first paragraph of the security considerat=
ions is true, then this would be great.=C2=A0 And that paragraph is then al=
l that is necessary.=C2=A0 The later paragraphs don't really add any value.=
=C2=A0 Truisms (new MIBs will include security considerations), appeal for =
SNMPv3, and a description of access control best practice are not really ne=
eded.=C2=A0 Do these new objects change the dynamics in a way that requires=
 new operational practices?=C2=A0 I suspect not.
>
> DK: We kept the SNMP boilerplate security code for best practice. We felt=
 the existing Security text did not further edits.
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 5: This document has a very high density of acronyms=
, as well as other symbols.=C2=A0 Providing expansions of acronyms on first=
 use (e.g. FEC) and providing some context for less frequently used symbols=
 would help casual readers.=C2=A0 With such a high density, it might even b=
e easier to use expansions by default for less commonly used labels.
>
> DK: Agreed, we expanded on some of the lesser known acronyms (FEC, OID, e=
t al.), but still avoiding expanding the well-known candidates (MPLS, etc.)
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 6: Bullet 5 Section 4.2.6 contains a number of stran=
ge, one-bullet lists.=C2=A0 Try <list style=3D"none"> if the intent is to i=
ndent these notes.=C2=A0 If the intent is that these items are part of a la=
rger list, then try sub-sections.
>
> DK: Fixed.
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 7: The diagram in Section 4.2.10 didn't help me unde=
rstand the relationships at all.=C2=A0 The text was much easier to follow.
>
> DK: Ah, we like it and had positive comments from others so we kept the f=
igure. It is busy but adds value by showing the directional interrelations,=
 the text does enhance. Hopefully once you read the text the figure becomes=
 more useful.
>
> MT =E2=80=93 Comment 8: Some references (RFC6370) need to be updated.
>
> DK: Fixed.
>
> Again, thanks for your time and review. Once you send me an echo-response=
 to confirm you are happy with these updates to address the relevant commen=
ts, we will format, check against submission tool and then upload the new v=
ersion.
>
> Br, Dan.