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

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

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

Glenn

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

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.
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.
 >  > > 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 >  > > 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.

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