[Softwires] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib-12

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 06 April 2018 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietf.org
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01BB01201FA; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 04:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.77.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152301400592.3723.16935065114036251800@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 04:26:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/W-wNSrBWja0uy-qwZk5zdI9FeXo>
Subject: [Softwires] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-mib-12
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 11:26:46 -0000

Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments. This draft defines MIB
for MAP-E for use with SNMP. It is well written and I have no concern on
operational aspects. Here are a few editorial comments as follows: 1. Please
remove unused reference RFC7598. 2. Section 4.1, the 1st paragraph, last
sentence Can you list which parts of the IF-MIB in more details here the MAP-E
depends on? 3. Section 4.1.1 two categories on mapping rules In MIB module
definition, it looks the mapping rule is divided into three categories, i.e.,
BMR, FMR and BMRandFMR,which is not consistent with two categories
classification defined in section 4.1.1, I am wondering whether we also have
fmrandbmr, i.e., Forwarding Mapping Rule can also be basic Mapping Rule, in
other words, is fmrandbmr same as bmrandfmr? Is fmrandbmr a set that belong to
both fmr and bmr? Try to understand this, would it be great to clarify this in
section 4.1.1. 4.Section 4.1.2 two kind of invalid packets In MIB module
definition, two MapSecurityCheckEntries are defined, one is
mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4, the other is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4. I am
wondering whether    these two entries are corresponding to two kind of invalid
packets described in section 4.1.2. also I am not sure I understand payload
source IPv4 address and port, are these payload source and port are referred to
received packets’ source IPv4 address port mentioned in section 4.1.2.
5.Section 6 does this document request IANA to assign new OID under mib-2 or
just use existing OID under mib-2?