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

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

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
> >