AD Review: draft-ietf-entmib-v3-07.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:52:06 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.entmib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550639CEBA@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
Here are mY AD review comments:
1. SMICng says:
C:\bwijnen\smicng\work>smicng entmibv3.inc
W: f(entmibv3.mi2), (655,17) Item "entPhysicalUris" should
have SIZE specified
*** 0 errors and 1 warning in parsing
It might be good to add a SIZE to that object.
2. I see on Page 63:
It is recommended that the implementers consider the security
features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework. Specifically, the
use of the User-based Security Model RFC 2574 [RFC2574] and the
View-based Access Control Model RFC 2575 [RFC2575] is recommended.
I thought I had commented before, that the citations to RFC2574/75
probably should be changed into RFC3414/15
3. W.r.t. references and citations I find:
!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
P063 L034: [RFC2026]
!! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC2574]
P062 L033: use of the User-based Security Model RFC
2574 [RFC2574] and the
!! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC2575]
P062 L034: View-based Access Control Model RFC 2575
[RFC2575] is recommended.
The last 2 probably because you did update the references section
but not the citation (as per point 2 above)
I see: [RFC CLEIURN] on page 11 and [RFCCLEIURN] on page 12
They probably should be the same as teh reference:
[RFCCLEIURN]
You may consider this as IETF Last Call comments,
together with the comment from Subra from last week.
so pls do not issue a new rev yet.
Bert