Re: Pseudo WG Last Call for: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-02.txt

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> I would like to do a 2 week pseudo WG Last Call on this
> document to then be considered for a Proposed Standard.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-02.txt
> 
> Pls send your comments (both positive and negative) before April 13th.

I have two comments, one substantive and one cosmetic.  First the
substantive comment:  in Section 3, "Overview", the document states
that

   It is expected that this MIB module will be updated by subsequent
   RFCs which register additional well-known transport domains and which
   introduce new textual conventions for the address formats used by
   those new transport domains.

This statement gives the impression that it is possible for
subsequently-defined MIB modules to contain transport domain
definitions that effectively extend the values of all of the
TCs defined in the TRANSPORT-ADDRESS-MIB.  However, that is
not really true:  while it is possible to extend the values
of TransportDomain and TransportAddress in another MIB module,
it is not possible to extend TransportAddressType in that way.

For that reason, I suggest that it be pointed out both in
the "Overview" section and in the DESCRIPTION clause of the
TransportAddress TC that any transport domain registered in
a separate MIB module CANNOT be one that is identified by a
TransportAddressType value.  The purpose of putting it in both
places is to make sure that MIB designers using the TCs are aware
of the limitations that come with specifying a TransportAddressType
object instead of a TransportDomain object as the context for
interpreting a TransportAddress value.

The cosmetic comment is that the heading and values of the
"encoding" column in the TransportAddressLocal DESCRIPTION
clause don't line up.

Regards,

Mike