Subject: [Int-dir] Int-Dir - Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:00:58 +0000

Hi,

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/intarea.html>.

This document defines MIB objects to manage DS-Lite solutions, and targets the Standards Track.

Please find some minor review comments:

5.  Difference from the IP tunnel MIB and NATV2-MIB

   Notes: According to section 5.2 of [RFC6333], DS-Lite only defines
   IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels at this moment, but other types of encapsulation
   could be defined in the future.  So this DS-Lite MIB only supports IP
   in IP encapsulation, if another RFC defined other tunnel types in the
   future, this DS-Lite MIB will be updated then.

CMP: Should the above say that this only supports IPv4-in-IPv6?

   The implementation of the IP Tunnel MIB is required for DS-Lite.  The
   tunnelIfEncapsMethod in the tunnelIfEntry should be set to
   dsLite("xx"), and a corresponding entry in the DS-Lite module will
   exist for every tunnelIfEntry with this tunnelIfEncapsMethod.  The
   tunnelIfRemoteInetAddress must be set to "::”.

CMP: Might be useful to add that this is because the tunnel is not point-to-point.

      dsliteAFTRAlarmConnectNumber OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX Integer32 (60..90)
         MAX-ACCESS read-write

CMP: Has this been checked? https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html>

9.  Security Considerations

   There are a number of management objects defined in this MIB module
   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create.

CMP: I only saw one read-write and no read-create. Are there “a number of …”?

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

CMP: Why is RFC 2119 Informative?

I hope these are useful!

Thanks,

— Carlos.