Please see attached review.

     Brian






I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see


http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-01-19
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-14
IESG Telechat date: 2013-01-24

Summary:  In good shape, two open issues pending from LC review.
--------

Comment:  
--------

I see a note in the tracker that the MIB Doctor review "still needs to happen".
However, one of the authors is a MIB doctor.

Major issue:
------------

In draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 the list of caches is stated to include

  Name:  The IP Address or fully qualified domain name of the cache.

I find no way to represent the FQDN option in the MIB module. We state
explicitly in the 6renum documents that it should be possible to configure
network elements using names in preference to addresses, so I think this is
a problem. Of course, at run time, the FQDN will have been resolved into
an address, but why isn't there also an FQDN object in the MIB module?
I had a reply on this topic from one of the authors, but there has
been no updated draft:


http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg08031.html



Minor issue:
------------

In draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 the preference is defined as

 Preference:  An unsigned integer denoting the router's preference to
      connect to that cache, the lower the value the more preferred.

That doesn't specify a range. The MIB specifies the range as 0..255:

   rpkiRtrCacheServerPreference OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..255)

Is this an oversight in draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr? If not, it seems
necessary to state what should be in the MIB object if preference>255.

Nit:
----

"Two Notification have been defined..."
s/Notification/Notifications/