[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: NITs for draft-ietf-snmpconf-bcp-10.txt
OK, IESG just approved this doc as informational.
But, as agreed you will do a revision to address the
below comments. So if you can do so asap, then we
can probably get it into RFC-Editor queue before X-mas
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: vrijdag 6 december 2002 17:09
To: Iesg-Secretary (E-mail)
Cc: Iesg (E-mail)
Subject: NITs for draft-ietf-snmpconf-bcp-10.txt
My nits are:
- Remove the "Best" from phrases like "Best Current Practice"
Do so also for places where it is all lower-case.
I understand that this is still aleft over from the time
that the WG wanted this to be a BCP doc. Now that we go
for informational we should not suggest that this is bcp.
- Split references in normative and informative.
Since this is Informational, maybe they are all informative.
- page 4 2nd para, last sentence
Well, is it really a sentence??
- page 38 SnmpSetSerialNo
remove the SNMPv2. It is SNMP version independent.
The new replacement for RFC1907 has removed this too.
So better be in sync.
- I wonder, do we want to get a MIB OID assigned under experimental
for the BLDG-HVAC-MIB? Then either do so and fill in the OID
or add IANA considerations so they know to assign it.
If we do not want to ask for an assignment, then maybe make that
clear in a comment, so no one if confused.
Eitehr way is fine with me.
- In the STorageType objects, you must add some text as to which
objects must be writable for permanent rows (as per RFC2579).
Probably the proper thing is to add:
Conceptual rows having the value 'permanent' need not allow
write-access to any columnar objects in the row.
- There is no specific "Security Considerations Section".
But section 6 does talk about security. So maybe a "Security
Considerations Section" that points to the discussion in sect 6 is
what needs to be done. Steve or Jeff? Or are you happy with what
they have now in section 6?