Last Call Review of draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
review-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06-opsdir-lc-shore-2015-08-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-08-18
Requested 2015-08-06
Authors Deepak Kumar, Samer Salam, Tissa Senevirathne
Draft last updated 2015-08-23
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -06 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -08 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Melinda Shore 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06-opsdir-lc-shore-2015-08-23
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-08-23

Review
review-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06-opsdir-lc-shore-2015-08-23

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

Summary:  The document is in good basic shape, with some
weaknesses in the security considerations.  I'd like to
see those remedied but I'm not sure they're serious enough
to recommend blocking publication.

This document specifies a MIB for TRILL.
This document has been received MIB doctor review and
issues raised during that review have been been resolved.

The security considerations section is weak, but not
fatally so.  The draft identifies exposing MAC addresses as a
potential privacy issue but does not identify other security
considerations specific to this particular MIB module, which
is unfortunate given the inclusion of writable objects.  More
specificity about which security mechanisms to use might help
avoid interoperability problems.  Also, in this climate it may
be useful to separate out the privacy issues into a "Privacy
Considerations" subsection.

The nits checker found:
  . two instances of non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
  . a missing reference to CFM.  This one is wrong - CFM
    is identified and a reference provided in the Introduction
    (section 1)

Melinda