[Softwires] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-06: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

Hello,

I am a bit puzzled because the Abstract recognizes that the document is built
onto an incomplete data-set and that makes me wonder whether the model will be
usable until the data-set is completed.

Also, I really do not understand the update you propose to the registry. It
seems that you point to the technology spec rather than to the original mib
module definition, but I quickly looked and none of the specs I parsed define
the mib entry/value, so getting rid of the existing reference appears to me as
a clear loss of information. I think you should keep the original reference and
add a new one if needed, but not simply replace.

And if you have undertaken this effort of tidying the registry, why not
complete it with the missing values?