Document:
========
Definitions and Managed Objects for OAM Functions on
Ethernet Like Interfaces - draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-05.txt

Reviewer:		Eric Gray
Review Date:	2/9/2007
IETF LC End Date:	2/9/2007

Summary:
=======

This draft is not quite ready for publishing as a Proposed Standard
RFC.

The draft is very well written, especially given the complexity 
of the subject matter, and the descriptions are useful and seem
very complete.

I appreciate the author's efforts in making this a very easily
readable document.

Errors identified using the idnits tool must be addressed, except
in areas where MIB proposals may be exempt, prior to submission 
to the RFC Editor.

In addition, I have a few minor/editorial comments and questions,
below...

Comments:
========

Weird formatting of section headers takes some getting used to.
Weird formatting of the reference section makes it difficult to
find specific references (especially if using a paper copy).
___________________________________________________________________

As a purely structural comment, the text immediately preceding 
section 3.1 should either say something about section 3.4, or it 
should not say anything about sections 3.1 - 3.3.  Alternatively,
you might consider re-structuring section 3 (e.g. - 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
3.1.3 and 3.2).
___________________________________________________________________

In the description text on page 10 (second paragraph), you have
the following text (without quotation marks):

     "[802.3-2005] refers to:
              IEEE Std 802.3-2002:"

I belive the second line should read (without quotation marks) - 

             "IEEE Std 802.3-2005:" 

This looks like a cut-and-paste error.
___________________________________________________________________

In the 1st line of the paragraph at the bottom of page 21, 
"looopback" should be "loopback" (there is an extra "o" in 
the current version).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Questions:
=========

>From section 3 (Overview - paraphrased):
Three functional objectives (of OAM):

    Remote fault indication  
    Link monitoring 
    Remote loopback

Is this a general observation about OAM, or does it affect the 
way that the MIB objects and tables are laid out?
___________________________________________________________________

At the top of page 13, should "At initialization and failure ..."
be "At initialization and recovery ..."?
___________________________________________________________________

In section 7, Security Considerations, you include the following
statement:

"Unlike SNMP, IEEE P802.3ah OAM does not include encryption or 
 authorization mechanisms."

Should "authorization" be "authentication"?
___________________________________________________________________

On page 53, 3rd line, you say:

"information available obtainable via OAM ..."

Is the phrase "available obtainable" supposed to mean something,
or should one, or the other, of the two words be omitted?
___________________________________________________________________

In the 2nd paragraph of page 53, the 2nd sentence starts with
"Even if ..." and includes the phrase "..., even then, ..." -
what conditions does the 2nd use of "even" apply to (or is it 
used for additional emphasis)?

I had some difficulty in parsing this sentence, but it may be
that I was trying to read something that isn't there...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Results from running idnits (non verbose)
==========================================

idnits 2.01.1 

tmp/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-05.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC
4748:
  * This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line,
    instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748.
  * This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer,
instead of
    the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC
4748.

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
  * The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about
    Internet-Drafts being working documents -- however, there's a
paragraph
    with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
  - No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed
    Standard
  - The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1
    longer page, the longest (page 5) being 60 lines

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * There are 58 instances of lines with non-RFC3330-compliant IPv4
addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be
changed.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  - The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does
not
    match the current year
  - Line 289 has weird spacing: '...ficInfo   dot3...'
  - Line 294 has weird spacing: '...ationTx  dot3O...'
  - Line 295 has weird spacing: '...ationRx  dot3O...'
  - Line 311 has weird spacing: '...dConfig    dot...'
  - Line 317 has weird spacing: '...dConfig  dot3O...'
  - (3 more instances...)

  Experimental warnings:
    (Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard)

  - Unused Reference: 'RFC2586' is defined on line 2715, but not
referenced
  - Unused Reference: 'RFC3636' is defined on line 2738, but not
referenced
  - Possible downref: Non-RFC Normative Reference: ref. '802-2001'
  * Downref: Informational Normative Reference: RFC 2586

    Summary: 5 errors, 12 warnings

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information.
______________________________________________________________________

The 1id_guidelines looks to be very picky (it seems you left out
a hyphen).

I believe the IP-address issue is an error in idnits.  It seems 
to be treating arbitrary "dotted-notation" strings as IP addresses.

The "IETF Trust" error probably should be fixed...