Hi, Qin Wu Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. Please see my reply inline >I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's >ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. >These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational >aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call >may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors >and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call >comments. This draft defines MIB for MAP-E for use with SNMP. It is well >written and I have no concern on operational aspects. Here are a few >editorial comments as follows: 1. Please remove unused reference >RFC7598. [fuyu] The RFC7598 is referenced by the definition of RuleType >2. Section 4.1, the 1st paragraph, last sentence Can you list >which parts of the IF-MIB in more details here the MAP-E depends on? [fuyu] Yes, I will update it in more detail as : "MAP-E MIB is configurable on a per-interface basis, so it depends on several parts of the IF-MIB by ifEntry [RFC2863]". >3.Section 4.1.1 two categories on mapping rules In MIB module definition, it >looks the mapping rule is divided into three categories, i.e., BMR, FMR and >BMRandFMR,which is not consistent with two categories classification >defined in section 4.1.1, I am wondering whether we also have fmrandbmr, >i.e., Forwarding Mapping Rule can also be basic Mapping Rule, in other >words, is fmrandbmr same as bmrandfmr? Is fmrandbmr a set that belong >to both fmr and bmr? Try to understand this, would it be great to clarify >this in section 4.1.1. [fuyu] In the section 5 of RFC7597, it defines two types of mapping rules: Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) and Forwarding Mapping Rule (FMR). So we should accord with this definition in RFC7597. And in the section 4.1 of RFC7598, it defines F-flag to specify whether the rule is to be used for forwarding (FMR). If set, this rule is used as an FMR; if not set, this rule is a BMR only and MUST NOT be used for forwarding. And a BMR can also be used as an FMR for forwarding if the F-flag is set. So in the RuleType definition, it defines bmrAndfmr to specify this scenario. I will update a description as above in section 4.1.1. >4.Section 4.1.2 two kind of invalid packets In MIB >module definition, two MapSecurityCheckEntries are defined, one is >mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4, the other is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4. I am >wondering whether these two entries are corresponding to two kind >of invalid >packets described in section 4.1.2. also I am not sure I understand payload >source IPv4 address and port, are these payload source and port are >referred to received packets’ source IPv4 address port mentioned in >section 4.1.2. [fuyu] Yes, two kind of invalid packets In MIB module definition is mapSecurityCheckInvalidv4 and mapSecurityCheckInvalidv6, which are corresponding to two kind of invalid packets described in section 4.1.2. I will update a clarify in the MIB definition. >5.Section 6 does this document request IANA to assign new OID under >mib-2 or just use existing OID under mib-2? [fuyu] It request IANA to assign a new OID. Thanks again for your review Cheers Yu
