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

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Masanori, 

See one comment inline. Hopefully, the message quoting won't be lost. 

On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Masanori Miyazawa wrote:

> 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))

Looks good. 

> --------------
> 
>>   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 }

I always thought this was a real pain that IEEE floating point values were used for TE bandwidth. Aren't these semantics consistent across TE bandwidth values? 
They are consistent in RFC 3630 and RFC 3784. Why not Float32TC from RFC 6340 rather than OCTET STRING(SIZE)4))?

  Float32TC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
      STATUS       current
      DESCRIPTION  "This type represents a 32-bit (4-octet) IEEE
                    floating-point number in binary interchange format."
      REFERENCE    "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic,
                    Standard 754-2008"
      SYNTAX       OCTET STRING (SIZE(4))


 
> ----------------
> 
>>   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 }

This is correct in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-11.txt. 

 
> 
>>   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 }
> -------

Ok. 


> 
> 
>>   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.

Thanks,
Acee



> 
> 
>> -----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
>