[IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

I have performed the AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt.
This document is in good shape and I am sending it to IETF Last Call.
Please address the comments below together with the other IETF LC
comments. 

The technical comments are marked T and the editorial comments are
marked E. 

T1. 

        Float64TC
           FROM FLOAT-TC-MIB           -- draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float

Actually will need to be published before or simultaneously with this
document, in order to satisfy the normative reference. Leaving
draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float would be confusing, we need the RFC number
here. I suggest to include here (as a comment) a note to the RFC Editor
that mentions that draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float is to be replaced with
the RFC number of that document, and the note deleted. 

T2. Why do psampSampCountBasedAvail, psampSampTimeBasedAvail,
psampSampRandOutOfNAvail, psampSampUniProbAvail,
psampFiltPropMatchAvail, psampFiltHashAvail have DEFVAL clauses? These
are read-only objects, so the values must be configured by some other
means (not by SNMP) and just read by the agent.  

T3. There is no need to include the following in the IANA considerations
section: 

           psampSampCountBased    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 2 }
           psampSampTimeBased     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 3 }
           psampSampRandOutOfN    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 4 }
           psampSampUniProb       { ipfixSelectorFunctions 5 }
           psampFiltPropMatch     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 6 }
           psampFiltHash          { ipfixSelectorFunctions 7 }

These are already assigned in the MIB module and no IANA action is
required for them. 


E1. The contents of sections 3 and 4 are similar, but the formatting of
the texts in the two sections is different. I suggest to fix this using
for section 4 the same format as in section 3, which is easier to read. 

E2. Page 5 - second paragraph s/as defiend/as defined/

E3. Please explain the meaning of each enumerated value in the
DESCRIPTION clause of psampFiltHashFunction

E4. Please detail the 'corresponding sampling function' in the
DESCRIPTION clause of each one of the conformance groups under
MODULE-COMPLIANCE. 


Thanks and Regards,

Dan