AD review of rfc2618bis-02 through rfc2621bis-02

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Editor and WG,

Dan had already done MIB doctor review and he is basically OK
I believe). So I did a quick check in my role as AD.

  draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-02.txt 
  draft-ietf-radext-rfc2619bis-02.txt 
  draft-ietf-radext-rfc2620bis-02.txt 
  draft-ietf-radext-rfc2621bis-02.txt 


I did just do draft-ietf-radext-rfc2618bis-02.txt
The others probably have similar minor issues.

As far as I am concerned, we can do IETF Last Call (these go
for standards track so we must do IETF LC) now. You can then
consider below comments as the first set of IETF LC comments.
And then address them right after IETF Last Call, or maybe you 
want to wait and see if there are any IESG comments that you
could address at the same time. By that time, Dan will tell
you how to proceed.

Bert
---- comments
somewhat MUST change comments (easy, and basically admin
bureaucracy, but would be good to change):

  We do want a copyright statement in the DESCRIPTION clause of a module
  identity. So change
  OLD:
          DESCRIPTION
                "The MIB module for entities implementing the client
                 side of the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service
                 (RADIUS) authentication protocol."
  NEW:
          DESCRIPTION
                "The MIB module for entities implementing the client
                 side of the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service
                 (RADIUS) authentication protocol.
                 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This version
                 of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see the RFC
                 itself for full legal notices."
           -- RFC Ed.: replace xxxx with actual RFC number & remove this note


-  radiusAuthServerInetAddress OBJECT-TYPE
         SYNTAX     InetAddress
         MAX-ACCESS read-only
         STATUS     current
         DESCRIPTION
               "The IP address of the RADIUS authentication
                server referred to in this table entry, using
                the version neutral IP address format."
         ::= { radiusAuthServerExtEntry 3 }

   according to RFC4001, you MUST specify which object of SYNTAX 
   InetAddressType controls the format of this object. I t is clear 
   which one  it is, b ut it would be good to add that.

- radiusAuthClientServerInetPortNumber
  According to RFC4001, you must specify what the value zero means 
  for this object.

- for this one
   radiusAuthClientExtMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
        STATUS  current
        DESCRIPTION
              "The compliance statement for authentication
               clients implementing the RADIUS Authentication
               Client IPv6 Extensions MIB.  Implementation of
               this module is for entities that support IPv6,
               or support IPv4 and IPv6."
        MODULE  -- this module
               MANDATORY-GROUPS { radiusAuthClientExtMIBGroup }

        ::= { radiusAuthClientMIBCompliances 2 }
 
  I think it would be better to do:

   radiusAuthClientExtMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
        STATUS  current
        DESCRIPTION
              "The compliance statement for authentication
               clients implementing the RADIUS Authentication
               Client IPv6 Extensions MIB.  Implementation of
               this module is for entities that support IPv6,
               or support IPv4 and IPv6."
        MODULE  -- this module
               MANDATORY-GROUPS { radiusAuthClientExtMIBGroup }

        OBJECT     radiusAuthServerInetAddressType
        SYNTAX     InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) }
        DESCRIPTION
           "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and
            globally unique IPv6 addresses."

        OBJECT     radiusAuthServerInetAddress
        SYNTAX     InetAddress (SIZE(4|16)) 
        DESCRIPTION
           "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and
            globally unique IPv6 addresses."

- real nits and admin stuff

  !! Contains embedded space:
  P004 L021:    textual conventions defined in this memo [RFC 4001] that support all

  !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P020 L018:    [RFC2574]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model

  !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P020 L022:    [RFC2575]  Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based

  !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P020 L049:    [RFC3411]  Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An

  !! Missing citation for Normative reference:
  P021 L006:    [RFC3418]  Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the

  RFC2574 and RFC2575 should be replaced by RFC3414 and RFC3415

  RFC3410 is better listed as an Informative reference.

  In general, pls re-check all citations/references.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>