Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib

["Masanori Miyazawa" <[e-mail]>]

Acee,

Please see our answer to your comments as below and let us know if you have
any question.

Regards,
Masanori

>   1. Many of the textual conventions are longer than they need to be.
While
> ISIS is, in general, more verbose than OSPF, you most of the textual
> conventions are longer than they need to be.
> 
> 
>            TedAreaIdTC - This is 32 octets while I the longest ISIS
address
> is 20 octets. For OSPF, the Area ID is 4 octets.
>            TedRouterIDTC - This is 32 octets while the OSPF router ID is
> 4 octets and the ISIS system ID is 6 octets.
> 
>       This really doesn't cause any problems but I think it needs to be
> addressed.

I modified the lengths of the textual convention.

-----------
TedAreaIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       STATUS       current
       DESCRIPTION
          "The area identifier of the IGP. If OSPF is used to advertise LSA,
this represents an ospfArea. If ISIS is used, this represents an area
address."
       SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..20))

TedRouterIdTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
       STATUS       current
       DESCRIPTION
          " The router identifier. If OSPF is used to advertise LSA, this
represents a Router ID. If ISIS is used, this represents a System ID."
       SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..6))
--------------

>    2. Bandwidth values - All the bandwidth values are represented as bytes
> per second with an Unsigned32 range. However, RFC 3630 represents these
> values sing an IEEE floating point value. Additionally, this
representation
> results in a maximum bandwidth value of 32Gbps (without error correct).
> I think this may soon become much too low (if not already).

As you mentioned, the definitions of the bandwidth value were wrong. In
order to support RFC3630, I think that Syntax should be modified to OCTET
STRING. The below is a example of the modification. 
What do you think about the modification?

---example of tedMaxBandwidth---

tedMaxBandwidth OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE(4))
    UNITS        "bit per seconds"
    MAX-ACCESS   read-only
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
      "This indicates the maximum bandwidth that can be used on this link in
this direction."
REFERENCE
	 " Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2, [RFC
3630], 2.5.6"
::= { tedEntry 14 }
----------------

>    3. For the TED table, please move tedLocalRouterID and
TedRemoteRouterID
> so the items constituting the index are in the beginning of the TED entry.

These indexes were displaced forward. Would that be right?

-------
tedEntry OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX       TedEntry
    MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
    "This entry contains TED information commonly utilized in both MPLS and
GMPLS."
   INDEX { tedLocalRouterId, tedRemoteRouterId, tedLinkInformationSource,
tedLinkIndex }

>    4. For tedSrlgIndex, should there be a reference another RFC?

I added RFC4203 in tedSrlg as a reference.

-------
tedSrlgIndex OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32(1..255)
    MAX-ACCESS   not-accessible
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
      "This index is utilized to identify multiple SRLG values on a local or
remote TE link. This object represents an arbitrary value which is locally
defined in a router".
    REFERENCE
     " OSPF Extensions in support of GMPLS, [RFC4203], 1.3 "

::= { tedSrlgEntry 1 }
-------


>    5. Section 11 is missing one of the key reviewers ;^).
My sincere apologies for missing you as a reviewer. We appreciate very much
the support from you.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Acee Lindem
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 7:50 AM
> To: CCAMP
> Subject: [CCAMP] 2nd WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib
> 
> Hey Masanori, Tomohiro, and Tom,
> 
> Lou asked me to take another look at this draft and I have some
significant
> comments/questions.
> 
> 
>   1. Many of the textual conventions are longer than they need to be.
While
> ISIS is, in general, more verbose than OSPF, you most of the textual
> conventions are longer than they need to be.
> 
> 
>            TedAreaIdTC - This is 32 octets while I the longest ISIS
address
> is 20 octets. For OSPF, the Area ID is 4 octets.
>            TedRouterIDTC - This is 32 octets while the OSPF router ID is
> 4 octets and the ISIS system ID is 6 octets.
> 
>       This really doesn't cause any problems but I think it needs to be
> addressed.
> 
> 
>    2. Bandwidth values - All the bandwidth values are represented as bytes
> per second with an Unsigned32 range. However, RFC 3630 represents these
> values sing an IEEE floating point value. Additionally, this
representation
> results in a maximum bandwidth value of 32Gbps (without error correct).
> I think this may soon become much too low (if not already).
> 
> 
>    3. For the TED table, please move tedLocalRouterID and
TedRemoteRouterID
> so the items constituting the index are in the beginning of the TED entry.
> 
>    4. For tedSrlgIndex, should there be a reference another RFC?
> 
>    5. Section 11 is missing one of the key reviewers ;^).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee