Hi, 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 primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document defines a MIB module for an experimental multicast forwarding protocol called SMF (Simplified Multicast Forwarding) for MANETs. Since the MIB modules is specific for use in MANETs, I do not expect any operational impact on the larger Internet. The intended document status is experimental and the MIB module is proposed to be registered under the experimental tree. I believe the document is 'ready with issues'. It will be up to Benoit to decide how to deal with them, given that this is an experimental document and not a standards-track publication. Personally, I would love to see at least the IANA module name(s) to change (see below). Looking at the MIB module (which compiles fine), a few questions popped up that I like to raise: Why do you introduce two IANA modules? Would it not be simpler to use a single IANA module for both textual conventions? The current naming scheme for IANA modules is IANA--MIB (the mixed case notation has only been used in the early days. So in short, why do you not but both textual convention definitions into say IANA-SMF-MIB? I do not understand smfCfgInterfaceTable, which is supposed to augment ifTable. Why do you need smfCfgIfName given that there is already ifName in the ifXTable? How does cmfCfgIfAdminStatus interact with ifAdminStatus? How does smfCfgIfRowStatus work on an augmenting table? It escapes me how you create an interface in the base tables with this mechanism. Looking at oage 60, it seems the RowStatus is limiting itself to create the objects in the sparse augmentation. Perhaps this can be made clearer in the DESCRIPTION clauses. Note that there is an incomplete sentence in page 60. I also wonder why you use "-c public -v 2c router" in the snmpwalk example while in the others you use "[options]". (And of course I had to 'guess' what specific tool you had in mind to make sense out of the examples. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 < http://www.jacobs-university.de/ >