Joel, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document based on my own review. Lars > On 2022-9-22, at 1:50, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs-04 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2022-09-21 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-04 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Assuming a reasonable answer to one question, this document is ready > for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. > > Major issues: > The one question I have is "why?" I could not find anywhere in the > document any explanation of why we are defining an SNMP MIB for monitoring > ipsecme, nor the equivalent why an operator would choose to use this MIB > instead of the YANG based model that it is based upon. > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: N/A > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
