Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt
Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com> Sun, 05 March 2017 07:13 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 25E74129465; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 23:13:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 AUALlbvNOwBW; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 23:13:54 -0800 (PST)
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 6FD0B1293EB; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 23:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.89] (cysvpn02.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id v257DgBD059338 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:13:43 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com)
To: Hiroshi Tsunoda <tsuno@m.ieice.org>
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> <c757a323-24a7-2696-657e-88f8e15e8a36@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkyFeX-S=sJwNMX-fgWThnMMiu_nF8xvcMow_BgJSfwsSQ@mail.gmail.com> <5e663cf0-1418-c410-bcf8-b235ee73fc29@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkyN0yLkpOXWt8D2-Niw7BCoujF+8JLjrPwgWobF03hZ7g@mail.gmail.com> <6f89f1f2-31e9-bf4a-05e9-1bb6e02f339e@cysols.com> <CAPbjwkyEnCGZEsGKjHozWmg-X-P3483=205BBGV9+DxbfJsDmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>
Message-ID: <03f83a27-e397-818d-65e7-27f95cd6e6e0@cysols.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 16:13:37 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPbjwkyEnCGZEsGKjHozWmg-X-P3483=205BBGV9+DxbfJsDmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C3203E794118225D70ACE0B8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/oFNYkjCTzOBJXDH4TbHSbQ7fhiY>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 07:13:58 -0000
Dear Tsunoda, > I think that I have addressed all of Glenn's comments in > this revision. Thanks for addressing the comments. The MIB compiles OK and is looking good. It is shaping up well. A new set of comments is attached. Please check and do the needful. Glenn On 2017/02/21 16:50, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: > Dear Glenn and BESS WG, > > I posted a new revision as follows. > I think that I have addressed all of Glenn's comments in this revision. > > In this revision, I have tried to add more detailed explanation > throughout the document. > Please review and let me know if there are any misunderstanding from > technical view points. > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-06.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-06 > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-06 > > Please see some notes below. > >> 1. Introduction >> >> 1.1 >> Would be very nice if a short explanations of MVPN and >> L2 VPN Multicast were given. With emphasis on the operational >> aspects. > > I have updated Introduction. I hope this update fulfills your requirements. > >> 1.4 .... there are 2 types of PMSIs .. >> >>> o I-PMSI: Inclusive PMSI - to all PEs in the same VPN. >>> o S-PMSI: Selective PMSI - to some of the PEs in the same VPN. >> >> please make these explanations more gentle(complete) to the reader. >> Also, give the references where these terms are defined. > > More gentle explanation and references were added in Terminology > section (Sec.1.1). > >> 3.2 some more text like the following will be good. >> L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB contains >> o a Textual Convention L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType that provides >> an enumeration of the provider tunnel types and, >> o a table l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable. The table index is >> composed of multiple attributes that depend on the tunnel type and >> uniquely identify a tunnel. This table will be used to ... monitor >> the tunnels supported by the system at a given point of time (?) >> It may also be used in conjunction with XXXX-mib to obtain the >> other details of a tunnel by following the row pointer of the >> corresponding tunnel's row in this table. >> [ Please treat the above as a template and modify the text as >> appropriate ..] > > Fixed in this revision. Please look at Sec. 3 Summary of MIB Module. > >> 3.3 Since this will become a standard document, please take care of >> definitions and notations used in the document. >> The notation I/S-PMSI is not defined. If you must use a new >> term/notation, define it before use. > > The notation I/S-PMSI is defined in Sec.1.1 now. > >> 4.8 >>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable OBJECT-TYPE >>> SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry >>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>> STATUS current >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "This table is for PMSI Tunnel Attributes (PTAs) >>> advertised/received in I/S-PSMI Auto-Discovery routes. >>> The entries may be referred to by I-PMSI or S-PMSI table >>> entries defined in other MIBs, e.g. mvpnMIB in >>> [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-mib]." >> >> It would seem that each row in this table is an index for a PTA >> and may contain pointers to rows in tables of other MIB modules >> which may contain more details for the PTA. Is that correct? >> Please reword the DESCRIPTION acordingly. >> Also see comments in 4.15 > > I have changed DESCRIPTION as follows. > > "An entry of this table corresponds with a > PMSI Tunnel attribute and is created by a PE router > that advertises and receives the attribute. > The entry in the table will be referred by other MIB modules > which are designed for monitoring and/or configuring > both L2 and L3 VPN that support multicast." > > >> 4.10-3 >> the phrase UDP-based S-PMSI appears here for the first time. >> Somewhere earlier it should be made clear that UDP too may be used >> in signaling. > > In Introduction, I have explained that BGP and UDP are used in signaling. > >> 4.13 >> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType OBJECT-TYPE >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "As defined for L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType. >>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, >>> this is pim-asm (3), pim-ssm (4), or pim-bidir (5). >>> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Tunnel Type >>> field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding >>> I/S-PMSI A-D or Leaf A-D route." >> o Does this description cover all the types? If not, then cover all the >> types unless there is a good reason to focus only on the above types. >> o I/S-PMSI: unexplained notation. > > Fixed. > >>> IPv4/IPv6 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType >> Please indicate that the first column gives the size > > I have updated the table as follows. > > Size (in octets) l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType > IPv4 IPv6 (tunneling technology) > -------------------------------------------------- > 0 0 noTunnelId (No tunnel information present) > 12 24 rsvpP2mp (RSVP-TE P2MP LSP) > 17 29 ldpP2mp (mLDP P2MP LSP) > 8 32 pimSsm (PIM-SSM Tree) > >>> 8/32 pimAsm >>> 8/32 pimSsm >>> 8/32 pimBidir >>> 4/16 ingressReplication >> >>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, the first >>> 8 or 32 octets of this attribute are filled with >>> the provider tunnel (source, group) IPv4/IPv6 addresses. >>> 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." >> >> A more generous description of the AttributeID would be good. All the >> cases must be covered. Section 5 of RFC 6514 does it nicely. A simple >> summary would be very nice. > > Fixed. I have summarized Section 5 of RFC 6514 here. > >> 4.15 >> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE >>> SYNTAX RowPointer >>> DESCRIPTION >>> "If the tunnel exists in some MIB table, e.g. mplsTunnelTable >>> [RFC3812], this is the row pointer to it. Otherwise, the >>> pointer is null." >> I am having problems understanding this. Will help if you can give >> a use case of how this will be used. As of now the intent is unclear. >> A RowPointer cannot be pointing to "some MIB table". It must be >> pointer to a specific row in a specific table. If this is a pointer to >> a row in the mplsTunnelTable spell it out clearly and unambiguously. > > I have changed DESCRIPTION as follows. > > "The tunnel identified by l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId > may be represented as an entry in other table, e.g, > mplsTunnelTable [RFC3812]. If there is such entry, > this object will point to the row pertaining to the entry. > Otherwise, the pointer is null." > >> 5.0 >>> 5. Security Considerations >> TBD > > I have rewritten this part according to the guideline described in > RFC4181 Sec.3.4. > >> 6.0 >>> 6. IANA Considerations >> >>> IANA is requested to root MIB objects in the MIB module contained in >>> this document under the mib-2 subtree. >> >> Please Note: >> To make the L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType TC maintainable you need to >> put the definitions in a separate MIB module. That would mean a >> separate branch in the mib-2 subtree. Then the maintenance of the >> TC can be carried out by some entity ( IANA or, some WG or, whoever is >> responsible for maintaining the TC) independent of other MIB objects. >> If that is the intent you will need to define 2 mib modules and you will >> need to request 2 branches in the mib-2 subtree- one for the module >> containing the L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType TC and another for the >> module containing the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable. > > Now, this document defines following two MIB modules: > - the module containing the L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType TC > - the module containing the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable. > > -- tsuno > > 2017-02-19 10:30 GMT+09:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: >> Dear Tsunoda, >>> I will submit the next version within three days. >>> The next versionbwill address all of remained your >>> comments. >> Great! Looking forward to the revised draft. >> >> Glenn >> >> On 2017/02/18 16:30, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: >>> >>> Dear Glenn, >>> >>> I am sorry I kept you waiting so long for the revised version, I have >>> been side tracked by other things. >>> I will submit the next version within three days. The next version >>> will address all of remained your comments. >>> The summary of remained TODOs is shown below. Please wait a little more >>> time. >>> ------------- >>> 1. Add general explanation about MVPN, multicast in VPLS >>> Define and explain some technical terms, such as PIM-MVPN, >>> UDP-based S-PMSI etc. >>> >>> 2. Revise summary of the MIB module >>> >>> 3. Revise MIB definition >>> a. Fix the description of l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable >>> b. Fix the description of l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType to >>> cover all cases. >>> c. Fix the description of l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId >>> d. Fix the description of l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer >>> >>> 4. Split the MIB module into two separate modules. >>> >>> 5. Revise security considertations >>> ------------- >>> >>> P.S. Update of mvpn-mib-02 will be submitted by the end of this month. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> -- tsuno >>> >>> 2016-12-03 21:19 GMT+09:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: >>>> >>>> Hi Tsunoda, >>>>> >>>>> I have started to volunteer to help to move this document forward. >>>> >>>> Great! >>>>> >>>>> I posted a new revision and addressed all editorial things in >>>>> that revision. >>>> >>>> Got this. Looks good. >>>>> >>>>> Please give me some more time for revising other parts, >>>> >>>> No problems. Will be looking forward to the revised document. >>>> >>>> Glenn >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2016/12/02 12:12, Hiroshi Tsunoda wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear Glenn, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your careful review and detailed comments/suggestions. >>>>> I have started to volunteer to help to move this document forward. >>>>> I posted a new revision and addressed all editorial things in that >>>>> revision. >>>>> Please give me some more time for revising other parts, >>>>> in order to be familiar with the context of the original and related >>>>> documents. >>>>> >>>>> URL: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-05.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-05 >>>>> Diff: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-05.txt >>>>> >>>>> Please see some notes below. >>>>> >>>>>> 0. Abstract. >>>>>> 0.1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it describes common managed objects used to configure >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no writable MOs in this MIB. So it does not look >>>>>> as though this MIB will be used for configuration directly. >>>>>> The use case scenario for monitoring is not clear, either. >>>>>> It appears that the MIB module(s) in this document will be >>>>>> used by other modules which are designed for monitoring and/ >>>>>> or configuring L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. Please re-examine the >>>>>> wording. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 1. Introduction >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.1 >>>>>> Would be very nice if a short explanations of MVPN and >>>>>> L2 VPN Multicast were given. With emphasis on the operational >>>>>> aspects. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. Please give me some more time to revise. >>>>> >>>>>> 1.2 >>>>>> s/referred to MVPN and L2 VPN Multicast respectively/ >>>>>> referred to as MVPN and L2 VPN Multicast,respectively/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 1.3 >>>>>> s/MVPN [RFC6513] [RFC6514]/MVPN [RFC6513],[RFC6514]/. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 1.4 .... there are 2 types of PMSIs .. >>>>>> >>>>>>> o I-PMSI: Inclusive PMSI - to all PEs in the same VPN. >>>>>>> o S-PMSI: Selective PMSI - to some of the PEs in the same VPN. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> please make these explanations more gentle(complete) to the reader. >>>>>> Also, give the references where these terms are defined. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. Please give me some more time to revise. >>>>> >>>>>> 3. Summary of MIB Module >>>>>> 3.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Attributes (PTAs) advertised/received in I/S-PSMI Auto-Discovery >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Typo: I/S-PMSI, (see 3.3 below). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 3.2 some more text like the following will be good. >>>>>> L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB contains >>>>>> o a Textual Convention L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType that provides >>>>>> an enumeration of the provider tunnel types and, >>>>>> o a table l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable. The table index is >>>>>> composed of multiple attributes that depend on the tunnel type >>>>>> and >>>>>> uniquely identify a tunnel. This table will be used to ... >>>>>> monitor >>>>>> the tunnels supported by the system at a given point of time (?) >>>>>> It may also be used in conjunction with XXXX-mib to obtain the >>>>>> other details of a tunnel by following the row pointer of the >>>>>> corresponding tunnel's row in this table. >>>>>> [ Please treat the above as a template and modify the text as >>>>>> appropriate ..] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. Please give me some more time to revise this point. >>>>> >>>>>> 3.3 Since this will become a standard document, please take care of >>>>>> definitions and notations used in the document. >>>>>> The notation I/S-PMSI is not defined. If you must use a new >>>>>> term/notation, define it before use. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. Please give me some more time to revise this point. >>>>> >>>>>> 4. Definitions >>>>>> >>>>>>> IMPORTS >>>>>>> MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, experimental >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 4.1 Since this is not a Experimental MIB do not import use >>>>>> experimental. >>>>>> It is good practice to keep the draft in the as "close to final >>>>>> form" >>>>>> as possible. (See below) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LAST-UPDATED "201310141200Z" -- October 14, 2013 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please update this date. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Updated. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "This MIB contains common managed object definitions for >>>>>>> multicast in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs, defined by >>>>>>> [RFC7117] and [RFC6513] [RFC6514] respectively. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would be good if you could rearrange the text. Something like >>>>>> "This MIB module will be used for managing multicast in Layer 2 >>>>>> VPNs [RFC7117] and Layer 3 VPNs [RFC6513], [RFC6514]. >>>>>> Or, even better >>>>>> "This MIB module will be used by other MIB modules designed for >>>>>> managing multicast in Layer 2 VPNs [RFC7117] and Layer 3 VPNs >>>>>> [RFC6513], [RFC6514] >>>>>> Or, a combination of both, depending on the envisaged use case >>>>>> scenarios. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rearranged the text along with your comment. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ::= { experimental 999 } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please >>>>>> o Replace "experimental" by the branch where this mib module will >>>>>> be anchored; that is a decision that the WG will take, >>>>>> probably. >>>>>> o Import the branch in the IMPORTS statement >>>>>> [ In the IANA Considerations section a branch in the mib-2 >>>>>> subtree >>>>>> is requested. In that case this must be >>>>>> ::= { mib-2 XXX } >>>>>> ] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Please also remove the ", experimental" text from earlier >>>>>>> -- IMPORTS section. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Remove these instructions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Removed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.5.2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Texual convention >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Typo: -- Textual convention >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "Types of provider tunnels used for multicast in >>>>>>> BGP/MPLS L2 or L3 VPN. Additional types may be defined >>>>>>> in future RFCs, and those will be allowed as >>>>>>> valid types for L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The part >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additional types may be defined >>>>>>> in future RFCs, and those will be allowed as >>>>>>> valid types for L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> may be deleted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Deleted. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Top level components of this MIB. >>>>>>> -- tables, scalars, conformance information >>>>>>> >>>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { l2L3VpnMcastMIB 1 } >>>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { l2L3VpnMcastMIB 2 } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastStates OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { l2L3VpnMcastObjects 1 } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Table of PMSI Tunnel Attributes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> should be >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Top level components of this MIB. >>>>>> >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastObjects OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { l2L3VpnMcastMIB 1 } >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { l2L3VpnMcastMIB 2 } >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastStates OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { l2L3VpnMcastObjects 1 >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> -- tables, scalars, conformance information >>>>>> -- Table of PMSI Tunnel Attributes >>>>>> >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.8 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry >>>>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "This table is for PMSI Tunnel Attributes (PTAs) >>>>>>> advertised/received in I/S-PSMI Auto-Discovery routes. >>>>>>> The entries may be referred to by I-PMSI or S-PMSI table >>>>>>> entries defined in other MIBs, e.g. mvpnMIB in >>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-mib]." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would seem that each row in this table is an index for a PTA >>>>>> and may contain pointers to rows in tables of other MIB modules >>>>>> which may contain more details for the PTA. Is that correct? >>>>>> Please reword the DESCRIPTION acordingly. >>>>>> Also see comments in 4.15 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. I need some more time to understand the original context. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.9 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> "An entry in this table corresponds to a PTA >>>>>>> that is advertised/received on this router. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are in the description of "l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry" >>>>>> so "entry in this table" does not fit in well. >>>>>> A rewording like >>>>>> "A conceptual row corresponding to a PTA >>>>>> that is advertised/received on this router. >>>>>> .... >>>>>> would be better. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.10 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, >>>>>>> they're derived from the S-PMSI Join Message. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that BGP-based signaling may be used for >>>>>>> PIM-MVPN as well." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the signaling mechanism important here? If it isn't then the >>>>>> above part of the description is redundant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Removed the above part. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.10-2 >>>>>> PIM-MVPN appears for the first time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Defined the notation of PIM-MVPM as follows >>>>> Protocol Independent Multicast - MVPN (PIM-MVPN) >>>>> However, I think that some descriptions may be required for this >>>>> somewhere in this document. That is TBD. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.10-3 >>>>>> the phrase UDP-based S-PMSI appears here for the first time. >>>>>> Somewhere earlier it should be made clear that UDP too may be used >>>>>> in signaling. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.11 >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, this is 0. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "this" is unclear. >>>>>> Something like "the value of this object is 0" will be better. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>>> More bits may be defined in the future and >>>>>>> they will be registered in IANA Registry xxxx." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This part is probably redundant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Removed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.12 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- RFC Ed. replace xxxx with the actual registry name >>>>>>> -- that is being created via [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-mib] >>>>>>> -- and remove this note. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Look at the comments in 6.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The above description ("IANA Registry xxxx.") was removed, >>>>> thus this part was also removed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.13 >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "As defined for L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType. >>>>>>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, >>>>>>> this is pim-asm (3), pim-ssm (4), or pim-bidir (5). >>>>>>> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Tunnel Type >>>>>>> field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding >>>>>>> I/S-PMSI A-D or Leaf A-D route." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> o Does this description cover all the types? If not, then cover all >>>>>> the >>>>>> types unless there is a good reason to focus only on the above >>>>>> types. >>>>>> o I/S-PMSI: unexplained notation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. Please give me some more time to address this point. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.14 >>>>>> >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SYNTAX OCTET STRING ( SIZE (0|4|8|12|17|24|29) ) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It appears that you also allow sizes "16" and "32"; these must be >>>>>> included. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>>> IPv4/IPv6 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please indicate that the first column gives the size >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I made a change as follows. >>>>> >>>>> Size l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType >>>>> (IPv4/IPv6) >>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>> (snip) >>>>> 8/32 pimAsm >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> Is this OK? >>>>> >>>>>>> 8/32 pimAsm >>>>>>> 8/32 pimSsm >>>>>>> 8/32 pimBidir >>>>>>> 4/16 ingressReplication >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, the first >>>>>>> 8 or 32 octets of this attribute are filled with >>>>>>> the provider tunnel (source, group) IPv4/IPv6 addresses. >>>>>>> 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." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A more generous description of the AttributeID would be good. All the >>>>>> cases must be covered. Section 5 of RFC 6514 does it nicely. A simple >>>>>> summary would be very nice. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. Please give me some more time to revise this point. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.15 >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> SYNTAX RowPointer >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "If the tunnel exists in some MIB table, e.g. mplsTunnelTable >>>>>>> [RFC3812], this is the row pointer to it. Otherwise, the >>>>>>> pointer is null." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am having problems understanding this. Will help if you can give >>>>>> a use case of how this will be used. As of now the intent is unclear. >>>>>> A RowPointer cannot be pointing to "some MIB table". It must be >>>>>> pointer to a specific row in a specific table. If this is a pointer >>>>>> to >>>>>> a row in the mplsTunnelTable spell it out clearly and unambiguously. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. I will need some more time to understand the original context. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.16 >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, this is the >>>>>>> row pointer to ifXTable. Otherwise, the pointer is null." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This description is better. Would be even better with >>>>>> "If the tunnel has a corresponding entry in the ifXTable, >>>>>> this object will point to the row pertaining to the entry >>>>>> ..... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 4.17 >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup OBJECT-GROUP >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "Support of these object is not required." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Support of these objects is not required. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> 5.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. Security Considerations >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TBD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Still TBD. >>>>> >>>>>> 6.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. IANA Considerations >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> IANA is requested to root MIB objects in the MIB module contained in >>>>>>> this document under the mib-2 subtree. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please Note: >>>>>> To make the L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType TC maintainable you need >>>>>> to >>>>>> put the definitions in a separate MIB module. That would mean a >>>>>> separate branch in the mib-2 subtree. Then the maintenance of the >>>>>> TC can be carried out by some entity ( IANA or, some WG or, whoever >>>>>> is >>>>>> responsible for maintaining the TC) independent of other MIB >>>>>> objects. >>>>>> If that is the intent you will need to define 2 mib modules and you >>>>>> will >>>>>> need to request 2 branches in the mib-2 subtree- one for the module >>>>>> containing the L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType TC and another for the >>>>>> module containing the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> TBD. I will address this point in the next revision. >>>>> >>>>> 2016-06-07 18:39 GMT+09:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> BESS mailing list >>>>>> BESS@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BESS mailing list >>> BESS@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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