RE: WG last call reminder

I've reviewed the MIB and have the following comments, primarily NITs,
there's only a couple minor point that likely require any discussion at all,
so I'll list those first, then list the NITs.  I did not run it through any
of the compilation tools; I'm assuming you all have done that and of course,
I'm not a mibologist, so I focused primarily on the earlier sections.  If
the doc has been reviewed by a MIB doctor and its gotten their approval from
that perspective, I would say it's ready to go!

Comments:
--------
- Page 22, section 5.3.1, 1st para under the bulleted list.  I don't
understand what this sentence is trying to say, beyond the obvious that
implementing the MIB is optional in NATs and firewalls or should this be
"may not support"?:
"  MIDCOM MIB does not mandate a middlebox to implement MIB modules for
   the functions, such as firewall and NAT, the middlebox may support."

- Page 25, section 6, 2nd sentence: "This section gives recommendation for
securely configuring the SNMP agent acting as MIDCOM server.",
"recommendation" should be plural and I'm not sure why the term "MIDCOM
server" is being introduced here, as this term is not introduced in section
3.1.  Shouldn't this be "MIDCOM Middlebox"?  Now, I can see that this term
is used throughout the MIB itself.  So, perhaps you need to state somewhere
in section 3.1 that the term "MIDCOM server" is used to refer to a MIDCOM
Middlebox which has been configured with an SNMP Agent. 

- Page 27, section 6.4: suggests that precautions SHOULD be taken for
avoiding conflicts concerning simultaneous access and allocation of group
and rule indices, but there's no recommendation as to SNMP mechanisms or
other suggested mechanisms to avoid the conflicts.  I would think there
should be a minimum recommendation of a mechanism to implement to avoid the
conflicts, examples or a list of possibilities. 

- Page 64, MidcomConfigFirewallEntry:  There's still a comment for Wes in
there, and it appears that this entry is incomplete. 


Editorial nits:
---------------

- Page 1: Copyright year needs revision (same with the Full Copyright
statement at the end).

- Page 5, section 3, 4th para: "effected" (n.) should be "affected" (v.)

- Page 6, section 4.1, 2nd para: "MIDOCM" typo

- Page 8, section 4.2.2, 2nd para: "...SNMP transaction indicate..." should
be "...SNMP transactions indicate..."

- Page 11, section 4.2.4.: "However, this sections shows..." should be
"However, this section shows..."

- Page 12, section 4.2.4.1, 2nd para: "MIDOCM" typo

- Page 12, section 4.2.4.2, 2nd para: "....this actions is atomic..." should
be "....this action is atomic..." OR "...these actions are atomic..."

- Page 12, section 4.2.4.2, 3rd para: "...are, acceptable,..." should be
"...are acceptable..."

- Page 13, section 4.2.4.4:  "...single SNMP notifications message..."
should be "...single SNMP notification message..."

- Page 14, section 4.3, 5th para:  "These are enforces when..." should be
"These are enforced when..."

- Page 15, section 5, 1st para: Capatilize "the" in the first sentence. 

- Page 19, section 5.2, 2nd para: "...rules in used firewall
implementations." should be " ...rules used in firewall implementations."

- Page 23, section 5.3.1, 3rd from the last para: "effected" (n.) should be
"affected" (v.)

- Page 23, section 5.3.1, 2nd from the last para, last sentence: 
"  MIDCOM MIB implementations must take about overruling filter rule
   sets and ensure that only desired filer behavior will be achieved." would
perhaps read more clearly as:
"  MIDCOM MIB implementations must take into consideration overruling of
filter rule
   sets and ensure that only desired filter behavior will be achieved."

- Page 25, section 5.4, 2nd para: "MDICOM-MIB" typo

- Page 25, section 5.4, 2nd bullet: superfluous sentence fragment can be
removed:  "of the MIDCOM client"

- Page 26, section 6.2, 2nd para: "controling" should be "controlling".

- Page 27, section 6.3, 3rd para: "...and individual entry..." should be
"...an individual entry..."

- Page 31, section 7.4, step 6: a reference to section 7.3 would be useful
here. 

- Page 32, section 7.5, step 6: "midcoSolicitedRuleEvent" should be
"midcomSolicitedRuleEvent"

- Page 32, section 7.6, step 4: a reference to section 7.3 would be useful
here. 

- Page 34, section 8.: "...how MIDCOM client..." should be "...how a MIDCOM
client..."

- Page 34, section 8.1, 2nd para: "In majority of cases..." should be "In
the majority of cases..."


Mary


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [midcom] WG last call reminder


This is a reminder that WG last call for the midcom MIB closes
on February 16, 2005 - next Wednesday.  Please take a look at
the document and post any comments to the mailing list.

The document is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-mib-04.txt

Thanks,

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom