[bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt
Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com> Tue, 07 June 2016 09:39 UTC
Return-Path: <glenn@cysols.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21F212D563; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PyvQhgLS2cbh; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from niseko.cysol.co.jp (niseko.cysol.co.jp [210.233.3.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6BA112D0CF; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 02:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.200] (Lenovo-X1Carbon.win2004.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u579dEtf016068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 18:39:15 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com)
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>
References: <56E7D219.7000902@orange.com> <56FBD402.9040102@cisco.com> <56FBDD81.6080502@cysols.com> <11152_1459347064_56FBDE78_11152_10229_1_56FBDE77.6030605@orange.com> <56FBE17E.5090609@cisco.com> <570C9586.7030905@cysols.com> <BLUPR0501MB17151A695785D4D8DD485633D4690@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <b4249e61-0a11-2ce1-c846-67096858fa2c@cysols.com> <BLUPR0501MB1715A3B288A27A39E99203B8D4490@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Message-ID: <c757a323-24a7-2696-657e-88f8e15e8a36@cysols.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:39:09 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0501MB1715A3B288A27A39E99203B8D4490@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3B67671C878F662B3E729FE6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/gQiFtqoCG975xhGhlEnch7xRMDA>
Cc: "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 09:39:33 -0000
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:glenn@cysols.com] >> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:02 AM >> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; Benoit Claise >> <bclaise@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com >> <thomas.morin@orange.com> >> Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; ops-ads@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux >> <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org; mib-doctors@ietf.org >> 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:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Mansfield >>>> Keeni >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:28 AM >>>> To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com >>>> <thomas.morin@orange.com> >>>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; ops-ads@ietf.org; >> Martin >>>> Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org; Mach Chen >>>> <mach.chen@huawei.com> >>>> 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 >>> BESS@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>> > >
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Mach Chen
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Mach Chen
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Mach Chen
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Mach Chen
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Mach Chen
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… thomas.morin
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… thomas.morin
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-… Glenn Mansfield Keeni