AD review of rfc2618bis-02 through rfc2621bis-02
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Sun, 19 March 2006 05:43 UTC
Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:45:06 +0000
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155098E211B@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: "Dan Romascanu (E-mail)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "David Kessens (E-mail)" <david.kessens@nokia.com>
Subject: AD review of rfc2618bis-02 through rfc2621bis-02
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 06:43:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Editor and WG, Dan had already done MIB doctor review and he is basically OK I believe). So I did a quick check in my role as AD. draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-02.txt draft-ietf-radext-rfc2619bis-02.txt draft-ietf-radext-rfc2620bis-02.txt draft-ietf-radext-rfc2621bis-02.txt I did just do draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-02.txt The others probably have similar minor issues. As far as I am concerned, we can do IETF Last Call (these go for standards track so we must do IETF LC) now. You can then consider below comments as the first set of IETF LC comments. And then address them right after IETF Last Call, or maybe you want to wait and see if there are any IESG comments that you could address at the same time. By that time, Dan will tell you how to proceed. Bert ---- comments somewhat MUST change comments (easy, and basically admin bureaucracy, but would be good to change): We do want a copyright statement in the DESCRIPTION clause of a module identity. So change OLD: DESCRIPTION "The MIB module for entities implementing the client side of the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) authentication protocol." NEW: DESCRIPTION "The MIB module for entities implementing the client side of the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) authentication protocol. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC itself for full legal notices." -- RFC Ed.: replace xxxx with actual RFC number & remove this note - radiusAuthServerInetAddress OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX InetAddress MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The IP address of the RADIUS authentication server referred to in this table entry, using the version neutral IP address format." ::= { radiusAuthServerExtEntry 3 } according to RFC4001, you MUST specify which object of SYNTAX InetAddressType controls the format of this object. I t is clear which one it is, b ut it would be good to add that. - radiusAuthClientServerInetPortNumber According to RFC4001, you must specify what the value zero means for this object. - for this one radiusAuthClientExtMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement for authentication clients implementing the RADIUS Authentication Client IPv6 Extensions MIB. Implementation of this module is for entities that support IPv6, or support IPv4 and IPv6." MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { radiusAuthClientExtMIBGroup } ::= { radiusAuthClientMIBCompliances 2 } I think it would be better to do: radiusAuthClientExtMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement for authentication clients implementing the RADIUS Authentication Client IPv6 Extensions MIB. Implementation of this module is for entities that support IPv6, or support IPv4 and IPv6." MODULE -- this module MANDATORY-GROUPS { radiusAuthClientExtMIBGroup } OBJECT radiusAuthServerInetAddressType SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } DESCRIPTION "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and globally unique IPv6 addresses." OBJECT radiusAuthServerInetAddress SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(4|16)) DESCRIPTION "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and globally unique IPv6 addresses." - real nits and admin stuff !! Contains embedded space: P004 L021: textual conventions defined in this memo [RFC 4001] that support all !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P020 L018: [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P020 L022: [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P020 L049: [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P021 L006: [RFC3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the RFC2574 and RFC2575 should be replaced by RFC3414 and RFC3415 RFC3410 is better listed as an Informative reference. In general, pls re-check all citations/references. -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
- AD review of rfc2618bis-02 through rfc2621bis-02 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)