Re: Renaming the GMPLS TED/OSPF MIB

["tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>]

I had a look at this I-D (the word MIB caught my eye:-) and it would seem to
have some way to go, at least from an editorial point of view. eg
 - the introduction isn't quite English as I know it to the point where I am
unsure if I know what is being said about the role of this MIB module vis-a-vis
others
 - no MIB boiler plate
 - IANA considerations do not mention being under the transmission branch (is
that the right place for this?)
 - use of transmission 9988 as a placeholder
 - module name 'TED-DRAFT01-MIB '!
 - no normative references
...........

all of which and more is covered in RFC4181.  I would suggest a check by the
authors against that RFC before taking this further.  I also get some strange
characters such as little black blobs at the turn of every page.

I am also unclear where the I-D uses 'OSPF' whether it now means only OSPF or
whether it means all such protocols and has not been updated to reflect the
change of title ie I suggest looking carefully at all uses of 'OSPF' by itself
and only using that when OSPF alone is meant.

And when I understand the English better, I expect I will disagree on a
technical basis as well - eg  [OSPFMIB UPDATE] (a rather clumsy reference IMO)
does not update [OSPFMIB], it supersedes it so I suspect that there should be a
normative reference to the former and no mention of the latter; in which case
the reference could be to RFCyyyy.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: "Tomohiro Otani" <otani@kddilabs.jp>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Renaming the GMPLS TED/OSPF MIB


> Tomo,
>
> As discussed in San Diego, could you please resubmit
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-mib-01.txt as
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-00.txt
>
> This trivial piece of house keeping will keep us honest going forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>