Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib-04.txt

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP
> Security Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title		: Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Monitoring MIB
> 	Author(s)	: P. Hoffman
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-monitor-mib-04.txt
> 	Pages		: 75
> 	Date		: 2003-4-15

I noticed several formatting problems in this document when
comparing it to the previous version.  Specifically, it seems
that in a lot of the places where the old page headers and
footers were removed the adjacent lines got merged together.
For example:

!    1 IKE SA.
!
!
! Jenkins & Shriver                                              [Page 11]
! ^L
! Internet Draft            IKE Monitoring MIB             October 3, 2001
!
!
!    This table augments the phase 1 security associations table (but
!    again, not using the AUGMENTS clause of SNMP).
--- 474,475 ----
!    1 IKE SA.   This table augments the phase 1 security associations table
!    (but again, not using the AUGMENTS clause of SNMP).

and:

!         MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
!
!
! Jenkins & Shriver                                              [Page 20]
! ^L
! Internet Draft            IKE Monitoring MIB             October 3, 2001
!
!
!         STATUS      current
--- 890 ----
!         MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible        STATUS      current

There was a lot of stuff like the last example.  I would suggest that
this probably needs to be fixed before submission to a MIB reviewer,
and certainly before publication.  The other MIB module drafts didn't
seem to suffer from this problem.

Some other comments apply equally to this draft and the companion
documents draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-di-mon-mib-05.txt and
draft-ietf-ipsec-monitor-mib-06.txt:

- The MIB boilerplate and SNMP-related references are out of date.
See http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html for current stuff.

- The Security Considerations section should probably be brought into
line with http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html (the basic content
is probably OK but some of the "boilerplate" stuff is out of date)

- Please import mib-2 from SNMPv2-SMI and not RFC1213-MIB.

- MIB module revision clauses are only supposed to document
versions that are published as RFCs.  See section 4.5 of
<draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt> (in fact doing
a general review to see if these MIB modules conform to those
guidelines can save you and the MIB reviewer a lot of time).

- It seems a little odd to me that the documents which define the
protocols that are being instrumented by these MIB modules are
listed as non-normative references.  I would think that a MIB
module implementor would need to be familiar with those documents
in order to correctly implement the managed objects.  If that's
true, then they should be normative references.

//cmh