[Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00

To: "dime at ietf.org" <dime at ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
From: Mark Jones <Mark.Jones at bridgewatersystems.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:38:27 -0400
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivered-to: dime at core3.amsl.com
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Thread-index: AcnuwmapFSKhsYI8SLuJgJpMFzVh9g==
Thread-topic: Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00

I have reviewed this draft and only have one comment: The dbpPeerVendorId should be Unsigned32 rather than enumerated INTEGER. Other than that the draft looks fine to me.

Regards
Mark

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
  - From: Glen Zorn

Prev by Date: [Dime] Quick review of MIBs
Next by Date: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
Previous by thread: [Dime] Quick review of MIBs
Next by thread: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.