Draft:  draft-ietf-rmonmib-raqmon-mib-11.txt
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern [joel@stevecrocker.com]
Review Date:  Saturday 2/4/2006 6:56 PM CST
IETF LC Date:  2/13/2006

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

Minor: The framework makes a point of distinguishing between 
discarded packets and lost packets.  The raqmonQos table does not 
make such a distinction.  Is there a reason for this?  Probably this 
would be dealt with by an extra sentence or two in section 4 
indicating the rationale for the particular selection of fields in the table.

Nit:  Was there no way to squeeze "priority" / "DSCP" (or at least 
"pri") in the names of the raqmonParticipantSrcLayer2 (DestLayer2, 
SrcLayer3, and DestLayer3) fields?  The bits definition and the 
description clause makes it clear what these are.  But the naming 
threw me for a bit.