Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Gelnn, Benoit,

Sorry for the late action and response after the initial round of review and revision - I have been side tracked by many other things.

I will try to get this done within next two weeks.

Thanks.
Jeffrey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:42 PM
> To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; EXT -
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Mach Chen; Martin Vigoureux;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-
> 04.txt
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Can you please finalize this draft.
> Glenn provided the first MIB doctor review in April!
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> > Hi,
> >   Any update on the MIB drafts?
> > Glenn
> >
> > On 2016/07/17 23:44, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote:
> >> Jeffrey and team,
> >>      Any progress on the MIB matters
> >> (draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-05.txt,
> >>  draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-03.txt )?
> >>
> >> Glenn
> >> On 2016/06/07 18:39, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote:
> >>> Hi Jeffrey,
> >>>    Thanks for the good work on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib
> >>> document. It took me some time to do this review. But now here it
> >>> is. A (near complete) review of
> >>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt is attached. Hope this helps.
> >>>    I understand that the Security Considerations section is TBD.
> >>>
> >>>    Glenn
> >>>
> >>> On 2016/05/19 4:48, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> >>>> Hi Glenn,
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:02 AM
> >>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise
> >>>>> <[e-mail]>; EXT - [e-mail]
> >>>>> <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> Cc: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Martin
> >>>>> Vigoureux
> >>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of
> >>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-
> >>>>> 02.txt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your detailed comments/suggestions. I posted a new
> revision
> >>>> with the following issues addressed.
> >>>>
> >>>> URL:
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-
> mib-04.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-04
> >>>> Diff:
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-
> 04
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see some notes below.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Glenn
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Comments:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.1
> >>>>>  >  I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB
> >>>>> objects -
> >>>>> We will comeback to this time and again, whereever possible make
> >>>>> matters explicit and clear. That will help.
> >>>>>  >  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.
> >>>>> That is better.
> >>>>
> >>>> I take it that this is already closed in -03 revision.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.2
> >>>>>  >  Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further.
> >>>>> PMSI explanation is good.
> >>>>> Please use the same style/format for I-PMSI and S-PMSI.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think -03 revision already use the same style/format for I-PMSI and
> >>>> S-PMSI?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2.3
> >>>>>  >  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.
> >>>>> No problems. just make sure that the same expression/notation is
> used
> >>>>> uniformly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I take it that this is also addressed in -03 already.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 3.
> >>>>>  >  > > 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.
> >>>>> A sentence or two about the textual convention will be good.
> >>>>
> >>>> Added in -04.
> >>>>
> >>>>>  >  > > 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.
> >>>>> Good.
> >>>>> 5.
> >>>>>  >  > >
> >>>>>  >  > > 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.
> >>>>> I would recommend using the REFERENCE clause as in rfs4382 and
> >>>>> improve on it.
> >>>>> Specifically, instead of keeping the reference in the DESCRIPTION
> >>>>> clause move it to a separate REFERENCE clause. The addition of the
> >>>>> section number is an improvement. It is friendlier to the reader.
> >>>>> Note. Same comment for other OBJECTs too.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh I missed that. All fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 7.1
> >>>>>  >  > > 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.
> >>>>> The format is OK. The Postal address etc., need not have been
> >>>>> deleted. Please put the complete contact information as in the
> >>>>> Author's Address. (RFC 2578 section 5.7 gives a usage example).
> >>>>
> >>>> Fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 7.3
> >>>>>  >  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.
> >>>>> Use of "experimental 99" is not recommended.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you mean 99 is not a good number? What about 9999? As I explained,
> >>>> I kept it so that we can use mib tools to validate, and I've added
> >>>> detailed notes for the editor.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 8
> >>>>>  >  > > 8. Specific MO and TC related comments.
> >>>>>  >  Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I
> >>>>> replace
> >>>>>  > with things like rsvpP2mp.
> >>>>> Yes. Camelcase is an allowed practice. SMI does not mind it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok this is closed already then.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 8.2
> >>>>>  >  > > 8.2 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE
> >>>>>  >  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?
> >>>>> As far as possible, the meaning of the objects must be made clear.
> >>>>> That will help implementors and operators- users of the MIB.
> >>>>
> >>>> I added the definition for one existing bit and reference to the IANA
> >>>> registry being created for this flag field.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8.3
> >>>>>  >  > > 8.3   l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE
> >>>>>  >  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
> >>>>>  > tPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE range so that it is flexible.
> >>>>>  > Is that ok?
> >>>>> I see that you have changed the size upper limit to 50.
> >>>>> If the size varies continuously from 0 to 50 the above description
> >>>>> is correct.
> >>>>> Please confirm, explain and cite appropriate reference. If the size
> >>>>> may change in the future that must be stated too.
> >>>>
> >>>> I changed to discrete sizes for currently defined tunnel types.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8.4
> >>>>>  >  > > 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.
> >>>>> Not quite.
> >>>>>     What is ifName table ? ifName is a columnar object in the
> >>>>> ifXTable.
> >>>>>     Is l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf a pointer to the corresponding row
> in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>     ifXTable table ? Please fix accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're right. Fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 9.
> >>>>>  >  > > 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 secur
> >>>>> ity 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please take your time. Looking at examples will help. And let me
> >>>>> know where I can help.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will need to work on that later.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 10.1
> >>>>>  >  > > 10.1 Checking nits according to
> >>>>>  >  > > http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
> >>>>>  >  Should I break them into different lines or just keep them
> >>>>>  >  as is? Any example of expected indentation if I break the
> >>>>>  >  lines?
> >>>>> No problems at all to  break lines.
> >>>>>       l2L3VpnMcastGroups      OBJECT IDENTIFIER
> >>>>>                               ::= {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 1}
> >>>>> Should do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Done.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 10.2
> >>>>>  >  > > 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
> >>>>>  >  I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC
> >>>>> 7117").
> >>>>> I would recommend that you put it as [RFC6513], [RFC6514], [RFC7117]
> >>>>> That is simpler to parse.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see some other documents do not have comma between multiple
> >>>> references so I followed that.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  >  > > 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK. So you are saying that this MIB contains core objects that
> >>>>> will be used to manage implementations of various multicast VPN
> >>>>> protocols e.g. [RFC7117], [RFC6513],[RFC6514] ? It will help if
> >>>>> you spell it out at the beginning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. I thought I did it already:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.  Introduction
> >>>>
> >>>>    ... and this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS
> >>>>    Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514].
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>> Jeffrey
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> >
> > .
> >