Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

Dear Venkat,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I reviewed -09, it solves my previous comments.


Thank you,
Tina

From: Venkatesan Mahalingam [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 2:47 PM
To: Tina TSOU
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG
Subject: Re: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-08

Tina,

We have published the new version 09, please go through the diff, if you have any further comments, please let us know.

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-09.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-09
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-09

>>The title of this draft indicates mib for MPLS-TP OAM ID but in the body MPLS is used mostly and sometimes MPLS-TP appears, for example, both MPLS tunnels and MPLS-TP tunnels are mentioned. I'm not sure if they can be used >>interchangeable. Besides, I notice that the names for the objects all start with "mplsoamidxxx", which seems to address mib for MPLS OAM ID. Then it is not aligned with the title of this draft. A bit confused. Could the authors provide >>any clarification on this? A general suggestion is to make alignment throughout the document, including the title of the draft.

As Loa suggested, we have included MPLS-TP (as we do this work as part of MPLS-TP) in the title but this draft actually describes the managed object for both MPLS and MPLS-TP tunnel identifiers.


-Venkat.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Venkatesan Mahalingam <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Thanks for your comments Tina, will address and publish the new version 09 soon.

-Venkat,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Tina TSOU <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear all,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
The document seems ready to go. I only found these minor nits:

The title of this draft indicates mib for MPLS-TP OAM ID but in the body MPLS is used mostly and sometimes MPLS-TP appears, for example, both MPLS tunnels and MPLS-TP tunnels are mentioned. I'm not sure if they can be used interchangeable. Besides, I notice that the names for the objects all start with "mplsoamidxxx", which seems to address mib for MPLS OAM ID. Then it is not aligned with the title of this draft. A bit confused. Could the authors provide any clarification on this? A general suggestion is to make alignment throughout the document, including the title of the draft.

* Abstract:

> it describes Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM)
> identifiers related managed objects for Multiprotocol Label Switching
> (MPLS) and MPLS based Transport Profile (TP).

I find this sentence hard to parse. Maybe s/related managed objects/related to managed objects/ ?


* Section 1, page 3:
> MPLS LSP(Label

There's a missing space.


* Section 5.1, page 4:

> The mplsOamIdMegTable is used to manage one or more Maintenance
> Entities (MEs) that belongs

s/belongs/belong/


* Section 6, copy&paste mistake

-- Source MEP id is derived from the IP compatible MPLS LSP
       mplsOamIdMeSinkMepIndex           = 0,

The description in the note should be sink MEP. There is already another line to describe source MEP.


* Page 15:

> BFD

This is the first and only instance of BFD. Please expand. (and maybe reference RFC5880)?


* Page 17:

"p2p" and "P2P" first used here. should probably be expanded.


Thank you,
Tina