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

["Glenn Mansfield Keeni" <glenn@cysol.co.jp>]

Hi,
    The following are the comments on the taddress-mib-02 draft.
some are cosmetic others require discussion:

Page-4 Sec-3 para 1. s/following definitions/follwing/    

Page-5 3.1.1 TransportAddressType appears for the first time
            Would it be better to move this section towards the end
            of the document or someplace after TransportAddressType
            is defined.

Page-7 definition of transportDomainUdpIpv4z you have used the
            term "non-global" which is correct. But "private"   may be 
            better those are the terms that appear in RFC1597 (?)

Technical issues:

There are provisions transportDomainUdpIpv4 (global + non-global)
and transportDomainUdpIv4z (non-global)  and similarly for TCP and 
v6. But,  what about the global domain - for which the corresponding 
addresses *are* from the global pool ? I would think it is necessary. 

More important - this affects us and implementations on all dual (v4/v6)  
stack systems rightaway- 

     There is the need for the following transport domains:
                      transportDomainUdpIpv4OrIpv6 and 
                      transportDomainTcpIpv4OrIpv6
     which will be used when the underlying IP transport (version) is 
     either unknown or unspecified. (as far as the command generators 
     are concerned, in the SNMP context).

Glenn