RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-sigtran-sctp-mib-10.txt

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

I already changed mu DISCUSS to a YES.

I would like to see in the writeup that we add that also
Shawn Routier and Mike Heard helped with the IESG review
(basically MIB Doctor review). In fact it would be good 
to see such things in the acknowledgement section, so that
we motivate people for future reviews.

W.r.t. these points reaised by Ted:
  3.1.2
  Would it make sense to eliminate "other" as a valid
  entry for the SCTP RTO mechanism (leaving only vanj),
  and note that later specifications may define other
  values? Leaving "other" for future use doesn't seem
  very likely to work well; it is meaningless now and under-
  specified in the future.

It is pretty common ib MIB documents that we include a 'other'
or 'unknown' enumeration. This is so that things can continue
to work and be reported as 'other' when a protocol is
already updated with something new, but the MIB is lagging 
behind in getting the new enumeration added.

  4 (page 20)
  So, whatever DNS name is received at initialization
  time is stored in sctpAssocRemHostName. First,
  that notation (0..115) indicates a 255 octet field?
  The authors might also want to review the recent
  thread on namedroppers:
  http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2003/msg00964.html
  and decide whether they need to describe more fully whether this 
  stored format is the uncompressed wire format or some other format.
 
We have added an RFC-Editor note to remove the (0..115).
Although, I do not see it in the ID-tracker. Jon/Allison, we did not
loose it did we. If so I can dig it up.




Thanks,
Bert