Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.]
Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com> Wed, 10 September 2008 08:32 UTC
Message-Id: <WED.10.SEP.2008.103257.0200.>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:32:57 +0200
From: Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.]
Comments: To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Comments: cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002EF61EC12574C0_="
Bert, thanks for catching that last one! I fixed it in the updated version: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-mib-10.txt Regards, -Robert PS. My replies are posted on the forces list, and they include your notes. "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> wrote on 09/09/2008 08:48:35 PM: > [image removed] > > Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > > Bert Wijnen \(IETF\) > > to: > > Robert Haas > > 09/09/2008 08:52 PM > > Cc: > > "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)", forces > > I find the following errors in revision 9 of the document: > > C:\bw\smicng\work>smicng forces.inc > E: f(forces.mi2), (77,11) Syntax error > E: f(forces.mi2), (396,1) Unrecognizable item in module - skipping to end > W: f(forces.mi2), (8,31) "TimeStamp" imported but not used > W: f(forces.mi2), (15,11) "ZeroBasedCounter32" imported but not used > > *** 2 errors and 2 warnings in parsing > > The first one is because you have this: > > ForcesProtocolVersion ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "ForCES protocol version number. > The version numbers used are defined in the > specifications of the respective protocol: > 1 - ForCESv1 [RFCzzzz]." > -- RFC Ed.: replace zzzz with actual RFC number of ForCES protocol > -- & remove this note > SYNTAX Integer32 (1..255) > DISPLAY-HINT "d" > > The DISPLAY-HINT (I believe) has to be the listed before the STATUS > clause. So This works: > > ForcesProtocolVersion ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > DISPLAY-HINT "d" > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "ForCES protocol version number. > The version numbers used are defined in the > specifications of the respective protocol: > 1 - ForCESv1 [RFCzzzz]." > -- RFC Ed.: replace zzzz with actual RFC number of ForCES protocol > -- & remove this note > SYNTAX Integer32 (1..255) > > And in fact removes/fixes all other errors > > Here is SMICng explanation: > > E: f(forces.mi2), (77,40) Syntax of a TEXTUAL-CONVENTION definition is > <tcName> "::=" "TEXTUAL-CONVENTION" > <optDspHint> > <status> > <desc> > <optRefer> > <syntax> > > RFC2579 states it as well (page 2 and 3): > > TEXTUAL-CONVENTION MACRO ::= > TYPE NOTATION ::= > DisplayPart > "STATUS" Status > "DESCRIPTION" Text > ReferPart > "SYNTAX" Syntax > > Other than that, your changes look fine to me. > > Bert > p.s. do you forward my postings to the forces WG list? > My postings do not get accepted. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com> > To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> > Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 2:52 PM > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > > > > Thanks Bert, I made the changes as suggested, the updated draft is: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-mib-09.txt > > > > My summary of the changes is copied below (See Section 10 in the draft). > > Regards, > > -Robert > > > > Changes from draft-ietf-forces-mib-08: > > > > o Changed the MIB objects forcesAssociationOtherMsgSent and > > forcesAssociationOtherMsgReceived to forcesAssociationOperMsgSent > > and forcesAssociationOperMsgReceived as they are not all other > > messages besides HB (comment from the General Area Review Team). > > > > o Changed MIB counter objects forcesAssociationHBMsgSent, > > forcesAssociationHBMsgReceived, forcesAssociationOperMsgSent, and > > forcesAssociationOperMsgReceived from Counter32 to > > ZeroBasedCounter32 (comment from Bert Wijnen). Adapted the > > paragraph about statistics counters in section "Associations kept > > in the MIB" > > > > o Introduced a MIB object forcesAssociationCounterDiscontinuityTime, > > and added it to the forcesAssociationEntry as well as to the > > forcesAssociationEntryDownStats notification and the > > forcesStatsGroup compliance group. Added text on discontinuity > > for all counter objects. > > > > o Removed MIB counters from the forcesAssociationEntryUpStats > > notification, as passing now zero values is useless. > > > > > > > > "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> wrote on 09/08/2008 10:39:12 > > PM: > > > >> [image removed] > >> > >> Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > >> > >> Bert Wijnen \(IETF\) > >> > >> to: > >> > >> Robert Haas > >> > >> 09/08/2008 10:40 PM > >> > >> Cc: > >> > >> FORCES, "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" > >> > >> From your description it sounds that indeed a ZeroBasedCounter32 would > > be > >> better. That way you indicate it starts at zero. > >> > >> And hearing that the same index (FEID+CEID) could come to life in the > >> table after one has been deleted, that makes it as a discontinuity. > >> How else would a NM appliation know that this is a different entry? > >> And so a discontinuity timestamp is needed. > >> > >> If there are no other reason why a discontinuity can occur (I do not > > know, > >> because I know to little of forces), then it would be good to state so. > >> > >> Text on page 32 of > >> > http://www.wtcs.org/snmp4tpc/FILES/Reference/snmp%20counters.pdf > >> is an example of a discontinuity counter. > >> > >> Bert > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com> > >> To: <bertietf@bwijnen.net> > >> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:44 PM > >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > >> > >> > >> > Bert, > >> > Indeed, I refrained as I saw that the use of ZeroBasedCounter32 was > > often > >> > discouraged ... But in the ForCES MIB, when the ForCES association > > comes > >> > up, a table row is created, and when the association goes down, the > > table > >> > row is destroyed. So it would be more natural if the counters in that > > row > >> > were zero-based (zeroed upon creation of the table row) instead of > >> > starting at a random value. If you say it's an acceptable use case > > then > >> > I'll change to ZeroBasedCounter32. > >> > > >> > Note that an association is identified by its index which is the > >> > concatenation of the FEID and CEID forming the association. So a new > >> > association coming up between the same FEID and CEID would appear with > > the > >> > same index as a previous association that went down. Would this be > >> > considered a discontinuity as the counters appear to be reset ? Apart > > from > >> > that, what else would cause a discontinuity ? > >> > I'd use the text from page 32 in > >> > http://www.wtcs.org/snmp4tpc/FILES/Reference/snmp%20counters.pdf to > >> > address this. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > -Robert > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > From: > >> > Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> > >> > To: > >> > FORCES@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM > >> > Date: > >> > 09/08/2008 03:07 PM > >> > Subject: > >> > [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Bert, > >> > Forwarded to Robert and Forces list (sorry couldnt figure how to let > > the > >> > allow you to post without subscribing you) > >> > > >> > cheers, > >> > jamal > >> > > >> > ----- Message from "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> on > > Mon, 8 > >> > Sep 2008 11:17:42 +0200 ----- > >> > To: > >> > dro@zurich.ibm.com, hadi@znyx.com > >> > Subject: > >> > Pls post this to forces WG list. > >> > I am not on the list and do not want to subscribe either. So my > >> > posting got bounced. Pls forward or post it for me. > >> > > >> > So if people want to comment/respond, they should explicitly > >> > copy me. > >> > > >> > Bert Wijnen > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> > >> > To: <ietf@ietf.org> > >> > Cc: <forces@peach.ease.lsoft.com> > >> > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:54 AM > >> > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-forces-mib (ForCES MIB) to > >> > ProposedStandard > >> > > >> > > >> >>I sort of wonder if the Counter32 is the proper datatype for some > >> >> of the counters. They sound more like ZeroBasedCounter32 to me. > >> >> > >> >> Further I do not see any text regarding possible discontinuities. > >> >> > >> >> Bert Wijnen > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >
- Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Robert Haas
- [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Patrick Droz
- Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Robert Haas
- Re: [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Robert Haas
- [Fwd: Pls post this to forces WG list.] Jamal Hadi Salim