Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06
review-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-04-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-05-13
Requested 2014-04-16
Authors Thomas Nadeau, Zafar Ali, Nobo Akiya
Draft last updated 2014-04-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Christer Holmberg
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-04-30
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-04-30

Review
review-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-04-30






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




 




Document:                         draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06




 




Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg




 




Review Date:                     30 April 2014




 




IETF LC End Date:             28 April 2014




 




IETF Telechat Date:         15 May 2014




 




Summary:        The document is almost ready for publication, with a couple of minor nits that the authors may want to address.




 




Major Issues: None




 




Minor Issues: None




 




Editorial nits:




 




Section 1 (Introduction):




---------------------------------




 




Q_1:




 




 




s/”two MIB modules”/”two Management Information Base (MIB) modules”




 




 




 




Section 4 (Security Considerations):




------------------------------------------------




 




Q_4:




 




The last sentence says:




 




“Therefore, this document has no impact on the security of the Internet.”




 




That sounds a little funny :) Wouldn’t it be better to simply say:




 




“Therefore, this document does not introduce any additional security considerations.”




 




 




Regards,




 




Christer