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