[Disman] draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-05.txt has been posted

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Sat, 04 June 2005 00:50 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DeMrS-0002RM-Pe; Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:50:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DeMrR-0002Qg-6H for disman@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:50:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA29637 for <disman@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:49:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from odd-brew.cisco.com ([144.254.15.119] helo=av-tac-bru.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DeNBm-0006B6-0k for disman@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:11:02 -0400
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j540npH05934 for <disman@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jun 2005 02:49:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.61.64.27] (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp27.cisco.com [10.61.64.27]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id j540nnF26612 for <disman@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jun 2005 02:49:49 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <42A0FAAA.7080905@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:49:46 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Disman (E-mail)" <disman@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010103030504010606060203"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2beba50d0fcdeee5f091c59f204d4365
Subject: [Disman] draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-05.txt has been posted
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/disman>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: disman-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: disman-bounces@ietf.org

Dear all,

A new version of event-mib draft, draft-ietf-disman-event-mib-v2-05.txt, has been posted.

Here is the list of changes:

- "StorageType" imported FROM SNMPv2-TC.
- In the "MteObjectsEntry" definition, the second "t" in "Storagetype"
 changed to "T" ("StorageType").
- The OID assignment for "mteObjectsEntryStorageType" was missing a "j":
   "::= { mteObectsEntry 6 }" changed to "::= { mteObjectsEntry 6 }"
- "mteTriggerEntryStorageType" added to the "dismanEventTriggerGroup" OBJECT-GROUP.
- "mteObjectsEntryStorageType" should be added to the "dismanEventObjectsGroup" OBJECT-GROUP.
- "mteEventEntryStorageType" should be added to the "dismanEventEventGroup" OBJECT-GROUP.
- new "status of this memo"
- new SNMP boilerplate
    As a consequence, the list of references is reduced
- normative versus informative references
- updated references. 

    Ex: RFC2573 -> RFC3413
    Ex: RFC2575 -> RFC3415
    Ex: [SNMP-TARGET-MIB] or [rfcNotificationLogMIB] not defined. Note: 
it was already the case in RFC2981
- reordered the last sections: security, references, author's address
        Also, author's address and acknowledgment sections not part 
anymore of the table of content
-"This document obsoletes RFC 2981. " in the abstract, and "This 
document obsoletes RFC 2981 [RFC2981]." in the overview
- DESCRIPTION

      "The MIB module for defining Managed Triggered Event (MTE) and actions
      for network management purposes.
- "Triggers define the conditions that lead to events. Events may cause notifications, may set MIB objects, or both."
instead of 
  "Triggers define the conditions that lead to events. Events may cause notifications."


Feel free to provide any feedback.


I run "idnits" against the draft. It complains that: 
  * The document seems to lack an Introduction section.
  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.

Is the introduction compulsory?
Is this "IANA Considerations" section compulsory? For example, if I look at RFC 3970 (TE MIB), there is none!

Regards, Benoit.