Re: [Int-dir] Int-Dir - Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11

["Yu Fu" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,

 

Thanks for your review. We have updated our draft based on you comments. Please see my reply inline.

 

>>CMP: Should the above say that this only supports IPv4-in-IPv6?

 

[Yu]：Yes, it only supports IPv4 in IPv6 tunnel.

 

>>CMP: Might be useful to add that this is because the tunnel is not point-to-point.

 

[Yu]: We have added it in the updated version.

 

>>CMP:Has this been checked? https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html

 

[Yu]:It has been reviewed by mib doctor during the WGLC.  I am not sure is that could be considered as it has been checked?

 

>>CMP: I only saw one read-write and no read-create. Are there “a number of …”?

 

[Yu]:We have updated this sentence to “There is only one objects defined in this MIB module…..”

 

>>CMP: Why is RFC 2119 Informative?

 

[Yu]: We have changed it into Normative References in the new version.

 

Thanks again

 

BR

Yu

 

From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 3:01 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Int-Dir - Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11 

 

Hi,

 

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html.

 

This document defines MIB objects to manage DS-Lite solutions, and targets the Standards Track.

 

Please find some minor review comments:

 

5.  Difference from the IP tunnel MIB and NATV2-MIB

 

   Notes: According to section 5.2 of [RFC6333], DS-Lite only defines

   IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels at this moment, but other types of encapsulation

   could be defined in the future.  So this DS-Lite MIB only supports IP

   in IP encapsulation, if another RFC defined other tunnel types in the

   future, this DS-Lite MIB will be updated then.

 

CMP: Should the above say that this only supports IPv4-in-IPv6?

 

   The implementation of the IP Tunnel MIB is required for DS-Lite.  The

   tunnelIfEncapsMethod in the tunnelIfEntry should be set to

   dsLite("xx"), and a corresponding entry in the DS-Lite module will

   exist for every tunnelIfEntry with this tunnelIfEncapsMethod.  The

   tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress must be set to "::”.

 

CMP: Might be useful to add that this is because the tunnel is not point-to-point.

 

      dsliteAFTRAlarmConnectNumber OBJECT-TYPE

         SYNTAX Integer32 (60..90)

         MAX-ACCESS read-write

 

CMP: Has this been checked? https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html

 

9.  Security Considerations

   There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module

   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. 

 

CMP: I only saw one read-write and no read-create. Are there “a number of …”?

 

12.2.  Informative References

 

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,

              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

 

CMP: Why is RFC 2119 Informative?

 

I hope these are useful!

 

Thanks,

 

— Carlos.