Document: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: November 25, 2009
IETF LC End Date: December 7, 2009

Summary:
This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described
in the review.

Comments:
This draft defines a MIB for the CAPWAP protocol.  It also extends
that protocol, which is a peculiar thing to do in a MIB document.
I've left review of the actual MIB definitions to the expertise 
of the MIB Doctors.

The important open issues that need to be resolved are tagged with [*].

[*] Intended document status is now Informational.  That needs to
be changed on the title page, but more importantly, someone
(draft shepherd?) should double-check whether the requested
IANA allocations are appropriate for an Informational document.
If there's a problem here, the IESG should be warned that a
process exception may be needed, as I think the allocations are
necessary for this draft.

[*] I see lots of editorial problems in the text prior to the
MIB definitions, most of which are not called out in this review.
I strongly suggest an editorial pass by a native speaker of
English prior to IESG Review.  Here's an example from Section
5.6 - the use of the word "conception" is incorrect in this phrase:
	the protocol of [RFC5416] defines WLAN conception
A better word would be "creation".

Terminology section:
- Add a definition of PHY, it's undefined in this document.
- Add a definition of WLAN, while it's defined elsewhere, WLAN
	is a crucial concept for this draft and hence needs a
	definition here.
- The definition of station (STA) is sufficiently general to
	include WTPs.  Was that intended?

Section 5.1 should explain the division of management of a
WTP between the actual CAPWAP protocol and this MIB.  The
first bullet creates this confusion, and that bullet is not
consistent with the first bullet in 5.4.  That lack of
consistency  should be corrected in addition to providing
the explanation.

Section 5.4: "The ifIndex [RFC2863] is used as a common handler"
I don't think it's a "handler".  The ifIndex is actually an index.

[*] The text in Section 5.7 attempts to modify RFC 5415.  That's
not a good idea for an Informational document.  It is ok to
say that if the additional requirements are not followed, this
MIB will not be useful or usable.

[*] Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a
MIB draft?  MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the
protocol that they provide management for.  This section, and
the changes in Section 5.7 ought to be in a separate draft
that could be standards track.

Appendix A (change history) should include a request to the
RFC Editor to remove it before publication of the RFC.

idnits 2.11.15 found a couple of nits:

  == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but
was
     first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the
disclaimer?
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.).

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
     draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-04