Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs- CC @larseggert Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5gau5fsdf6JutMgWnPRn9R_HVto). ## Discuss ### Section 4.2, paragraph 28 ``` l2FixedRate OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX CounterBasedGauge64 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "TFS bit rate may be specified as a layer 2 wire rate. On transmission, target bandwidth/bit rate in bps for iptfs tunnel. This rate is the nominal timing for the fixed size packet. If congestion control is enabled the rate may be adjusted down (or up if unset)." ::= { iptfsConfigTableEntry 5 } l3FixedRate OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX CounterBasedGauge64 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "TFS bit rate may be specified as a layer 3 packet rate. On Transmission, target bandwidth/bit rate in bps for iptfs tunnel. This rate is the nominal timing for the fixed size packet. If congestion control is enabled the rate may be adjusted down (or up if unset)." ::= { iptfsConfigTableEntry 6 } ``` I'm not sure what the intended meaning of the two "or up if unset" statements is. Even when congestion control is disabled (=unset), the given fixed rates will not be exceeded? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## Comments ### Section 3, paragraph 3 ``` This document specifies an extensible operational model for IP-TFS. It reuses the management model defined in [I-D.ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs]. It allows SNMP systems to read operational objects (which includes configured objects) from IPTFS. ``` The document uses IPTFS, IP-TFS, tfs, iptfs, Iptfs - please pick one and use it consistently. ### Boilerplate This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "MAY", "OPTIONAL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", and "SHOULD NOT", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.) ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Boilerplate Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected in the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD License". ### URLs These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which has been taken out of service: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
