[IPsec] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Routing AD comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-08

## COMMENTS

### Section 4.2

You have "TFS bit rate may be specified at layer 2 wire rate" and "TFS bit rate
may be specified at layer 3 packet rate". Shouldn't that be "as", not "at"? I
did go looking for insight in ipsecme-yang but it just made me think that
document has the same (looks to me like a) bug.

### Section 6

I'm a little mystified why "For the implications regarding write configuration"
considering this is a read-only MIB? (Which the very next paragraph goes on to
say.) The same applies a few paragraphs down where you talk about "who on the
secure network is allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the
objects in this MIB module" -- isn't it really just who can GET (read) the
objects? And the same for the "Further" bullet point.

## NITS

- s/paccket/packet/