Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Kenneth Vaughn <[e-mail]>]

See responses below

Regards,
Ken Vaughn

Trevilon LLC
1060 S Hwy 107
Del Rio, TN 37727
[phone] cell
[e-mail]
www.trevilon.com

> ### Paragraph 2
> ```
>                Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP
>                     draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
> ```
> Was there a mibdoctors review of this I-D? Should there be?

As Joe point out, there was not a formal MIB doctors review, but the changes were minor and there were less formal reviews by MIB experts. To your point about minor changes potentially creating bugs, I have used the MIB validator at simple web.org to ensure that the MIB compiles without errors.

> ### Section 1, paragraph 1
> ```
>     This document updates and clarifies how the rules of [RFC6353] apply
>     when using Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram Transport Layer
>     Security (DTLS) versions later than 1.2.  This document jointly
>     refers to these two protocols as "(D)TLS".  The update also
>     incorporates the [RFC8996] update, which prohibits the use of TLS
>     versions prior to TLS 1.2.
> ```
> Should this document then not also obsolete RFC8996?
I have revised the text to state "The update also emphasizes the [RFC8996] requirement that prohibits the use of TLS versions prior to TLS 1.2 when using SNMP." In other words, RFC 8996 is much broader than SNMP, so this document does not replace that document, but we do highlight the requirement so that readers are aware of the restriction.
 
> ### Missing references
> 
> No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
> `[RFC3413]`, `[RFC2579]`, `[RFC3411]`, `[RFC2578]`, and `[RFC2580]`.
All of these references are part of either STD58 or STD62, both of which are listed under normative references. 

I have not made any changes as it is unclear how this should be handled. 
Do I leave as is? 
Do I change the introduction to the MIB to only state that "This module makes reference to ... [STD58], [STD62], ..." and leave the MIB as is?
Do I change the intro as above and also change the comments in the IMPORTS statement (which would seem to lose valuable informative information)?
Do I change the normative references to cite each of the individual RFCs instead of the STD#s
Do I change the normative references to cite each of the individual RFCs in addition to the STD#s
NOTE: The STD#s are never directly referenced in the text but the other documents in the series provide context and the fact that these are part of a STD is perhaps useful to show as well. I am happy to implement whatever change is appropriate, but I do not know which to choose.

> ### Uncited references
> 
> Document updates `RFC6353`, but does not cite it as a reference, which is a bit
> odd.
I do not understand this comment. The document is cited in the body of the text (e.g., first paragraph of Section 2) and is listed under normative references. I am not sure what additional citation is being proposed.