Document: draft-ietf-rmonmib-pi-ipv6-03.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Date: April 15, 2004

This draft is probably about as clear as an RMONMIB is going to get,
for those outside the RMONMIB community. It assumes a background I
don't have, but points to RFCs where I can remedy this deficiency. I
don't see any showstoppers for publication as an Informational RFC.

Meta-question - why not PS? Is this evidence that publication as an
RFC is all some people need, even for identifiers specified by working
groups that get used in protocols? But I digress.

The IPR statement still references 2026, but the new RFCs had just
been approved when the draft was issued.

I did have one technical question - they are describing ip6 and ipip6,
and ipip6 is defined as ip6 over ip4. Would we expect to see other ip6
encapsulations defined in this document ("ip6ip6")? Or does RMONMIB
tend to wait for a need to arise before defining a new protocol
identifier?