[Adslmib] AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-04.txt
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Tue, 08 November 2011 16:45 UTC
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 3F16211E807F for <adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:45:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.356
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94UO0TshO8hi for
<adslmib@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:45:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com
(de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A4221F8B78 for <adslmib@ietf.org>;
Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwGAHxbuU7GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABDml2PKoEFgXQBAQMSHgpRARUVBgwMB1cBBBsanxSEFZwyiEpjBJlxjB8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,477,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="276544101"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by
de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 11:45:08 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14])
by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2011 11:44:22 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:45:06 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0404E0299D@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
thread-topic: AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-04.txt
thread-index: AcyeNcT+dePg4gidSueJRBXzS+MhQg==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: <adslmib@ietf.org>
Subject: [Adslmib] AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-04.txt
X-BeenThere: adslmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ADSLMIB <adslmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/adslmib>,
<mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/adslmib>
List-Post: <mailto:adslmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>,
<mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:45:11 -0000
Hi,
Please find below the AD review of
draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-04.txt.
This document is in a good shape, but a new version is needed in order
to clarify and fix some of the issues raised in the review.
The comments below are marked T (Technical) and E (Editorial)
T1. In section 5.2:
The agent SHOULD align the beginning of each interval to a fifteen
minute boundary of a wall clock. Likewise, the beginning of each one
day intervals SHOULD be aligned with the start of a day.
Where does this requirement come from? If the source is another standard
I suggest to provide it. What is the rationale? What happens if this
requirement is not / cannot be met because for example the agent does
not have access to a 'wall clock'?
T2. The tables in this MIB module do not respect the naming convention
recommended in Annex C of RFC 4181:
- The descriptor associated with a conceptual table should be of the
form xxxZzzTable; the descriptor associated with the corresponding
conceptual row should be of the form xxxZzzEntry; the name of the
associated SEQUENCE type should be of the form XxxZzzEntry; and the
descriptors associated with the subordinate columnar objects should
be of the form xxxZzzSomeotherName.
T3. In the DESCRIPTION clause of a couple of objects I found the
following:
This object is read-only for the GBS-C and irrelevant for
the GBS-R ports.
What does 'irrelevant' mean? What should the agent do with these objects
for the GBS-R ports?
T4. Although not mandatory it is considered good practice to include
optional UNITS clauses in objects that define performance counts.
T5. In the DESCRIPTION clause of gBondAtmPortPerfCurr15MinTimeElapsed I
found:
This object partially maps to the TR-159 attribute
aGroupPerfCurr15MinTimeElapsed.
What does 'partially maps' mean?
T6. In several DESCRIPTION clauses I found:
This object is inhibited during Unavailable Seconds (UAS).
Please explain what 'inhibited' means.
- [Adslmib] AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-a… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Adslmib] AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbo… Edward Beili
- Re: [Adslmib] AD review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbo… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)