Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt

[Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mach,
    I have sent the review on  2016/05/09.

On 2016/05/09 0:01, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote:
 > Jeffrey,
 >> Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments
 >> in the new revision:
 > Thanks for your cooperation. I will need at least one more revision
 > with the following comments/recommendations addressed before I will
 > be able to complete the detailed review. In the following the numbers
 > refer to the issue numbers in the initial review. The issues that are
 > addressed and closed are not listed. For brevity, the issue
 > descriptions have been trimmed. In case of doubts please look at the
 > response mail appended below.
 > Hope this helps.

Glenn

On 2016/05/13 17:22, Mach Chen wrote:
> Hi Glenn,
>
> Based on your below response, we assume that you will do a detailed review on the mibs, can you estimate when the review will be finished.
>
> Thanks,
> Mach
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:24 AM
>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; Benoit Claise; EXT - [e-mail]
>> Cc: Mach Chen; [e-mail]; Martin Vigoureux; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt
>>
>> Jeffrey,
>> 　　Thanks for the update.
>> Will get back to you after a detailed review is done.
>>
>> Glenn
>> On 2016/04/16 21:47, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
>>> Glenn,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments in the new
>> revision:
>>>
>>> URL:
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03.txt
>>> Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib/
>>> Htmlized:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03
>>> Diff:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03
>>>
>>> Please see below.
>>>
>>>> 1.  Abstract:
>>>> 1.1 A sentence on how the managed objects will be used by
>>>>      applications for operations, monitoring and management
>>>>      would be good.
>>>
>>> I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB objects - the
>> read-write ones are used to control how a device works, and the read-only ones
>> are used for monitoring. Do I really need to say it explicitly?
>>>
>>> I see RFC 4382 has the following:
>>>
>>>     This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base
>> (MIB)
>>>     for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
>>>     In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or
>>>     monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private
>>>     Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
>>>     Router (LSR) supporting this feature.
>>>
>>> Is it enough to say something similar? For example:
>>>
>>>          In particular, it describes common managed objects used to
>> configure
>>>          and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2.  Introduction
>>>> 2.1 Please give the full expansion of the abbreviations
>>>>      appearing for the first time.  (PE, VPLS,..)
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2.2 The terminology section is a bit terse. Explaining the
>>>>      terms that are used, nicely with reference to the protocol
>>>>      documents will improve readability.
>>>>      e.g.
>>>>       - PMSI, I-PMSI, S-PMSI, provider tunnels
>>>
>>> As the paragraph alluded to, this MIB needs to be understood in the general
>> context of L2/L3 multicast VPN and providing good explanation of the terms is
>> not attempted. The references for the terms are the the RFCs for the relevant
>> technologies.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further.
>>>
>>>> 2.3 Is there a difference between
>>>>         "multicast in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs , defined by
>>>>          RFC 7117 and RFC 6513/6514"
>>>>      used in the DESCRIPTION in the MODULE-IDENTITY
>>>>      and
>>>>         "multicast in BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN"
>>>>      used in the DESCRIPTION of L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ?
>>>>      If these are the same, it will be helpful to stick to the
>>>>      same expression. If these are not the same, the dictinction
>>>>      should be clarified.
>>>
>>> No difference. I was using "Layer 3" or "L3" but it was pointed out that the
>> layer 3 VPN is often referred to IP VPN in other RFCs and I was advised to
>> change it accordingly. Looks like I did not change all the cases.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I noticed that RFC 4382 does use "Layer 3 VPN" so I'll
>> change it back.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3.  Summary of MIB Module.
>>>>      An overview of the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB will be good- the
>>>>      structure of the MIB, short descriptions of the table(s)
>>>>      including usage of the table(s) for management and/or by
>>>>      other MIB(s).
>>>
>>> I had that, but have added one sentence about the only table.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> MIB definitions:
>>>> 4. MIB syntax checking:
>>>>     smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
>>>> 2>L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.txt
>>>
>>> I used simpleweb's validation tool but looks like I did not use the strictest
>> level of validation. I've now fixed the following issues and verified.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:63: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>> number `rsvp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:64: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>> number `ldp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:65: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>> number `pim-asm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:66: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>> number `pim-ssm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:67: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>> number `pim-bidir' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:68: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>> number `ingress-replication' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:69: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
>>>> number `ldp-mp2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
>>>
>>> See later question/comments below.
>>>
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:215: [5] {group-unref} warning: current
>> group `l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup' is not referenced in this module
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:4: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `NOTIFICATION-TYPE' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:5: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `Unsigned32' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:8: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `NOTIFICATION-GROUP' imported from module `SNMPv2-CONF' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `TruthValue' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `RowStatus' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `TimeStamp' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `TimeInterval' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:15: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `SnmpAdminString' imported from module `SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB' is never
>> used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier
>> `InetAddress' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' is never used
>>>>     mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning:
>>>> identifier `InetAddressType' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB'
>>>> is never used
>>>
>>> Removed the above unused imports.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5. REFERENCE clauses: Please use REFERENCE clauses liberally.
>>>>     Wherever possible, provide references for objects used in
>>>>     the MIB. The references will point to specific sections/
>>>>     sub-sections of the RFCs defining the protocol for which the
>>>>     MIB is being designed. It will greatly improve the readability
>>>>     of the document.
>>>
>>> Added.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 6. IMPORTS clause
>>>>     MIB modules from which items are imported must be cited and
>>>>     included in the normative references.
>>>>     The conventional style is
>>>>       mplsStdMIB
>>>>          FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB                           --
>> [RFC3811]
>>>
>>> Added.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 7. Please update the MODULE-IDENTITY. (There are no syntantic
>>>> errors.)
>>>> 7.1 CONTACT-INFO
>>>>      Following the conventions (including indentation style) will
>>>>      improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132).
>>>>      Will be good if it does not overflow into the next page.
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 7.2 REVISION clause: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181
>>>>      sec 4.5
>>>>            REVISION    "200212132358Z"  -- December 13, 2002
>>>>            DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy."
>>>>     -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note:
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>>> 7.3 OID assignment: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181
>>>>      sec 4.5 i
>>>>      replace
>>>>            ::= { experimental 99 } -- number to be assigned
>>>>      by
>>>>            ::= { <subtree> XXX }
>>>>     -- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this note
>>>>     <subtree> will be the subtree under which the module will be
>>>>     registered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I kept "experimental 99" so that I could continue to use mib tools to validate;
>> but I added notes for the editor to replace them as you indicated.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8. Specific MO and TC related comments.
>>>>        L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>>>>          STATUS       current
>>>>          DESCRIPTION
>>>>              "Types of provider tunnels used for multicast in
>>>>               BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN."
>>>>          SYNTAX       INTEGER { unconfigured (0),
>>>>                                 rsvp-p2mp (1),
>>>>                                 ldp-p2mp (2),
>>>>                                 pim-asm (3),
>>>>                                 pim-ssm (4),
>>>>                                 pim-bidir (5),
>>>>                                 ingress-replication (6),
>>>>                                 ldp-mp2mp (7)
>>>>
>>>>      o Would be nice to align the enumeration labels with the
>>>>        labels in the protocol document RFC 6514 unless there is
>>>>        a good reason for not doing so. (You will have to take
>>>>        care of the smi compilation errors too; '-' is not allowed ).
>>>
>>> Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I replace with
>> things like rsvpP2mp.
>>> Or could/should I just remove the definitions, so that if a new type is defined
>> in the future there is no need to update the MIB?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8.1  l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry OBJECT-TYPE
>>>>           SYNTAX        L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry
>>>>           MAX-ACCESS    not-accessible
>>>>           STATUS        current
>>>>           DESCRIPTION
>>>>               "An entry in this table corresponds to an PMSI attribute
>>>>                that is advertised/received on this router.
>>>>                For BGP-based signaling (for I-PMSI via auto-discovery
>>>>                procedure, or for S-PMSI via S-PMSI A-D routes),
>>>>                they are just as signaled by BGP (RFC 6514 section 5,
>>>>                'PMSI Tunnel attribute').
>>>>                For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN,
>>>>                they're derived from S-PMSI Join Message
>>>>                (RFC 6513 section 7.4.2, 'UDP-based Protocol')..
>>>>
>>>>                Note that BGP-based signaling may be used for
>>>>                PIM-MVPN as well."
>>>>      o Fix the ".." in "'UDP-based Protocol').." above.
>>>>      o Please give the reference for this Table.
>>>>        Is it-  "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6513 Sec.4  ?
>>>>                "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6514 Sec.5  ?
>>>>                 both?
>>>>        Any other pointers?
>>>
>>> Fixed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8.2   l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE
>>>>           SYNTAX        OCTET STRING (SIZE (1))
>>>>           MAX-ACCESS    not-accessible
>>>>           STATUS        current
>>>>           DESCRIPTION
>>>>               "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, this is 0.
>>>>                For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Flags
>>>>                field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding
>>>>                I/S-PMSI A-D route."
>>>>           ::= { l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry 1 }
>>>>      o  Please confirm that the above is a complete enumeration of the
>>>>         types of signalling.
>>>>      o  RFC 6514 Sec.5 says that the Flags field indicates
>>>>         "Leaf Information Required". That is useful information.
>>>>         Please include in the description.
>>>
>>> The intent is to simply return the octet value of the flags field, w/o listing
>> individual bits like "Leaf Information Required". More bits could be defined in
>> the future but the MIB would not change.
>>>
>>> Is that OK?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8.3   l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE
>>>>           SYNTAX        OCTET STRING ( SIZE (0..37) )
>>>>           MAX-ACCESS    not-accessible
>>>>           STATUS        current
>>>>           DESCRIPTION
>>>>               "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, the first
>>>>                four or sixteen octets of this attribute are filled with
>>>>                the provider tunnel group address (IPv4 or IPv6)..
>>>>                For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Tunnel
>> Identifier
>>>>                Field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding
>> I/S-PMSI
>>>>                A-D route."
>>>>      o Check the size specifications. The specs above say it can be
>>>>        all sizes 0..37. That is not clear from the DESCRIPTION clause.
>>>>      o Fix the ".." in "(IPv4 or IPv6).." above.
>>>>      o RFC 6514 Sec 5.  PMSI Tunnel Attribute gives the Tunnel Identifiers
>>>>        for mLDP, PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, BIDIR-PIM,Ingress
>> Replication,MP2MP.
>>>>        It appears that the sizes (range) for each case will be different.
>>>>        Please clarify that, and if there are discrete sizes, specify
>>>>        accordingly.
>>>
>>> Depending on the tunnel type, there could be different sizes. Future tunnel
>> types could have other sizes that not specified today. I was thinking to just give
>> a size range so that it is flexible. Is that ok?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8.3  l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE
>>>>          SYNTAX        RowPointer
>>>>          MAX-ACCESS    read-only
>>>>          STATUS        current
>>>>          DESCRIPTION
>>>>              "If the tunnel exists in some MIB table, this is the
>>>>               row pointer to it."
>>>>      o "some MIB table" : specify which MIB table.
>>>
>>> I can give an example, like mplsTunnelTable [RFC 3812]. It could be whatever
>> table that a tunnel may be put into.
>>>
>>>>      o In what case will the tunnel exist and in what case will it not?
>>>
>>> If a device supports mplsTunnelTable and the tunnel is represented there,
>> then it exists.
>>>
>>>>      o What will be the behaviour if the above condition is not satisfied?
>>>
>>> A null pointer should be given.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8.4  l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE
>>>>          SYNTAX        RowPointer
>>>>          MAX-ACCESS    read-only
>>>>          STATUS        current
>>>>          DESCRIPTION
>>>>              "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, this is the
>>>>               row pointer to the ifName table."
>>>>       o DESCRIPTION looks incorrect. Please fix it. Do you want to say
>>>>         this object points to the corresponding row in the ifTable?
>>>
>>> Yes. Fixed.
>>>
>>>>       o In what case does the TunnelIf exist and in what case will it not?
>>>
>>> Some tunnels may not have a corresponding interface.
>>>
>>>>       o What will be expected if the tunnel does not have a corresponding
>>>>         interface?
>>>
>>> Null row pointer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 9. The Security Considerations section does not follow the Security
>>>>     Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules
>>>>     http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security.
>>>>     Please fix.
>>>
>>> I was really hoping that it would not have to be that tedious. SNMP/MIB
>> security should be no different from the CLI security - once you secure the
>> infrastructure then what's more to do?
>>>
>>> I'll need more time to work on this. Let me try to address the issues in the
>> other mib first and come back to this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 10.ID-nits
>>>> 10.1 Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>>       ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the
>> longest one
>>>>          being 3 characters in excess of 72.
>>>
>>> I fixed some but there still three too long lines:
>>>
>>>       l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType
>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType,
>>>
>>>    l2L3VpnMcastGroups      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
>> {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 1}
>>>    l2L3VpnMcastCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
>>> {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 2}
>>>
>>> Should I break them into different lines or just keep them as is? Any example
>> of expected indentation if I break the lines?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 10.2 Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>>       == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7117' is mentioned on line 76, but not
>>>>          defined
>>>>          'described in [RFC6513, RFC6514, RFC 7117] and other
>> documents tha...'
>>>
>>> I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC 7117").
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 11.  There is another WIP MVPN-MIB in draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt
>>>>       MVPN-MIB has objects that refer to L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.
>>>>       Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? I have not
>> seen
>>>>       any discussion or explanation on this. I may have missed it. Please
>>>>       clarify or, give some pointers.
>>>
>>> As mentioned in the introduction:
>>>
>>>     this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS
>>>     Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514].
>>>
>>> MVPN-MIB is for MVPN. There was another VPLS Multicast MIB in the work
>> and both would reference common objects defined in this MIB.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Jeffrey
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Glenn
>>>> Mansfield Keeni
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:28 AM
>>>> To: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>; EXT - [e-mail]
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>>> Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Mach
>>>> Chen <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: [bess] MIBDoc review of
>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have been asked to do a MIB Doctors review of
>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt.
>>>> My knowledge of L2L3VPN Multicast is limited to the reading of this
>>>> document and browsing through the documents referred to in the draft
>>>> and bess-wg mailing list archives.( read "shallow").
>>>> So some of the doubts and questions may sound trivial or strange.
>>>> Please bear with me and help me help you make this into a better
>>>> document :-)
>>>>
>>>> The comments are attached.
>>>>
>>>> Glenn
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BESS mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>
>
>