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

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 22 October 2015 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38201A8A0C; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONGHqqDOzURO; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A37C1B3BE8; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9009; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1445540480; x=1446750080; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Ubhmw2MoKt6rIlkSKmygszFM9grj8W6DsJHA8/ayYdI=; b=ABU8jf7mtb3UCrFz68l+tUyScjTi2R306ob2ICvbB2aBC4bC0fm7BQFl 25lkSnKqJ5qFjr98RW9Ix3R70dU+Crl2hA/zsNHeGmQR8uuYlZoQ+kzrS NVFXU99SxsGXoSup25/Vl5/IO0Q/QeCzLWtgZ0XRracbWUGwgbGcXQPn0 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 841
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CvAgDCMSlW/5xdJa1egzZUbwa+HA6BWSGFfIFNOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEMQQjVhIBBkQCNCcEAQ0OBQ2IFQ2VDJ03knwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPCYZ3ghCHdwSCcDGBFAWSXYNOAYJNgWGIb4FYhD+DJJJqAR8BQ4QDcgGFPIEGAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,183,1444694400"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="38189510"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2015 19:01:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-019.cisco.com (xch-rcd-019.cisco.com [173.37.102.29]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9MJ1JmV003711 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:01:19 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) by XCH-RCD-019.cisco.com (173.37.102.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:00:59 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-020.cisco.com ([173.36.7.30]) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com ([173.36.7.30]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:00:59 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Int-Dir - Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
Thread-Index: AQHRDPv8uQQq0547Q0u+jVdDMLjGGg==
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:00:58 +0000
Message-ID: <A3D39C46-3E64-40EA-9D7C-E5818C1CFFAF@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.150.54.194]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CFC8D5B6-254A-40F7-8278-4B072F2FDBED"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/WFTR_4FJjF0xVe9R4DxdVPg3dT8>
Cc: "draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib.all@ietf.org>
Subject: [Int-dir] Int-Dir - Review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-11
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:01:40 -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.