Review if draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-06

Comments on draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-06:

Spelling and mib review included

Spelling:
497c497
< -- timers have values in units of hundreths of a second (i.e.
---
> -- timers have values in units of hundredths of a second (i.e.
536c536
<                       quotient + 1 [if remainder is non-zero]
---
>                       quotient + 1 [if remainder is nonzero]
562c562
< -- Groups defined in the Bridge Mib Extensions:
---
> -- Groups defined in the Bridge MIB Extensions:
709c709
<         multiple ports correspond one- to-one with multiple X.25
---
>         multiple ports correspond one-to-one with multiple X.25
800c800
<         timer for any port on this Bridge was non-zero."
---
>         timer for any port on this Bridge was nonzero."
1813c1813
< -- The Trap Notfication Group
---
> -- The Trap Notification Group
2112c2112
<     The following chnages have been made from
---
>     The following changes have been made from
2115c2115
<  (1)   Misc. description refernces to IEEE 802.1d documents
---
>  (1)   Misc. description references to IEEE 802.1d documents
2126c2126
<     The following chnages have been made from
---
>     The following changes have been made from
2130c2130
<        draft-00 version that were read /read-write in rfc 1493
---
>        draft-00 version that were read /read-write in RFC 1493
2134c2134
<     The following chnages have been made from
---
>     The following changes have been made from
2140c2140
<     The following chnages have been made from
---
>     The following changes have been made from


1) the following objects changed semantics of an existing object. Are
the changes consistent with the rules for object changes per SMIv2? In
some cases changes are conditional; how can an NMS determine which
condition is true? Will all NMS apps have this capability?

dot1dPortPriority
dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange
dot1dStatisAllowedToGoTo

Statements that this is a direct translation should be changed to
reflect that some objects were modified slightly.

2) the MIB boilerplate needs to be updated
3) need an rfc-ed note to fill in rfc# for revision clause
4) the security considerations don't identify sensitive objects
5) SNMPv3 references are old


dbh

David Harrington            
[email protected]
Director, Network Management Architecture
Office of the CTO, Enterasys Networks