Re: [Gen-art] [manet] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 27 April 2012 18:03 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9314521F86F5; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TjBFTpNEdj4B; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BFA21F86E8; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB795580DD; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC521BCE071; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-51-182.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 378DF1BCE06F; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F9ADF8B.804@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:03:55 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name>
References: <4F7E279C.3030707@nostrum.com> <4F7F12CA.9010009@joelhalpern.com> <CAK=bVC9EfdXVPj3b+mhjzsDyiYjOEwQEH+jQ49KcFbO4PkV=YA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK=bVC9EfdXVPj3b+mhjzsDyiYjOEwQEH+jQ49KcFbO4PkV=YA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, sratliff@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [manet] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:03:26 -0000
Pending actual text availability, the approaches described seem to recognize the issues and plan to address them appropriately. I look forward to seeing the result when it is ready, Thank you, Joel On 4/27/2012 12:56 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote: > Dear Joel, > > thank you very much for your review and apologies for our late reply. > Find our answers below, and > please tell us if they address your comments. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> > Date: Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM > Subject: [manet] [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12 > To: gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> > Cc: manet@ietf.org <mailto:manet@ietf.org>, "A. Jean Mahoney" > <mahoney@nostrum.com <mailto:mahoney@nostrum.com>>, > sratliff@cisco.com <mailto:sratliff@cisco.com> > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12 > > Definition of Managed Objects for the > > Neighborhood Discovery Protocol > > Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern > > Review Date: 6-April-2012 > > IETF LC End Date: 16-April-2012 > > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > > > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed > > Standard. > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > That's good :-) > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > > > Major issues: > > Section 5.1.3.1 on Ignoring Initial Activity is trying to do a very > > reasonable thing, namely suppress notifications for activity which is > > expected. The text references RFC 4750 as precedent. RFC 4750 is > > clear that the suppress window is tied to specific events (interface > > up and election as a DR.) Section 5.1.3.1 does not specify which > > condition(s) start(s) the suppress window. If, as seems likely, it is > > Interface Up which starts the window, please state that explicitly in > > the text. > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > How about adding the following sentence at the end of > the paragraph of 5.1.3.1 <http://5.1.3.1>: > "The suppression window for notifications is started when the 'nhdpIfStatus' > transitions > from its default value of 'false' to 'true'." > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > > In section 5.4, in addition to describing objects which are defined > > in the MIB, the text describes, under the heading "The following > > objects return statistics related to HELLO messages:", a number of > > what it refers to as "Derived Objects". These do not appear to be > > actual elements of the MIB. They appear rather to be descriptions of > > calculations which the manager can perform using the information from > > the MIB. It is not at all clear why they are here. If I am > > understanding their role properly, and if they belong in this > > document, they belong in some other section, as they are NOT objects > > which return statistics related to HELLO messages. They appear not to > > be returned by the managed device at all. > > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > Yes, you are right. We we pull these from the draft and > save the text and possibly use elsewhere in the future. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > > Minor issues: > > I can not find the object that corresponds to the setting for > > Ignoring the Initial Activity. I presume this is my error. The > > document would be helped if the object were named in section 5.1.3.1. > > > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > We can change 'HELLO_INTERVAL' in Section 5.1.3.1 to 'nhdpHelloInterval'. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > > I believe section 5.1.3.2 on Throttling Traps is intended to refer > > to the StateChange Threshold and StateChangeWindow objects. It would > > be very helpful if these were actually named in section 5.1.3.2. > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > How about adding the following sentence to 5.1.3.2 <http://5.1.3.2>: > The following objects are used to define the thresholds and time > windows for specific Notifications defined in the NHDP-MIB module: > nhdpNbrStateChangeThreshold, > nhdpNbrStateChangeWindow, nhdp2HopNbrStateChangeThreshold, > nhdp2HopNbrStateChangeWindow, nhdpIfRxBadPacketThreshold, > nhdpIfRxBadPacketWindow. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > Most MIBs I review have a description of the tables they contain, > > how the tables relate to each other, and how they are indexed, in the > > front matter that is roughly equivalent to section 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4. > > As I am not a MIB Doctor, I do not know if that is formally required, > > but I find it very helpful, and am surprised not to see it here. > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > We agree that this is probably a good practice to follow and will work > up text to handle this. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > In looking at the fields in the NhdpInterfaceEntry, some of the > > field definitions include some of the constraints from RFC 6130 > > section 5 in their DESCRIPTION clauses. Some do not. (For exampple, > > REFRESH_INTERVAL >= HELLO_INTERVAL is captured in > > nhdbpRefreshInterval, but not in nhdpHelloInterval. The requirement > > that nhdpHelloInterval be greater than 0 is not captured anywhere. > > Neither is H_HOLD_TIME >= REFRESH_INTERVAL captured.) Some elements > > have a statement that the object is persistent, while others do not, > > but these do not seem to correspond to a difference in RFC 6130. It > > is possible that there is a good reason for this apparent variation. > > Is there? > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > That's true. We will go through all constraints from NHDP and > add them to the MIB. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > > Particularly for top-level objects such as nhdpNHoldTime and > > NhdpIHoldTime I would really like to see a better description than > > just this is <named> object from section 5 of RFC 6130. Someone who > > is using the MIB, who is looking at the description clause for > > assistance, really needs something more than the name of the field in > > the MIB. (I think better descriptions would be a good idea through > > much of the MIB.) > > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > We will can look at the descriptions and copy some more text from > NHDP. However, we would like to avoid copying all NHDP into the MIB. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The tracker claims this is "In WG Last Call (manet), but also seems > > to indicate that it is in IETF Last Call. Are the two happening at > > the same time? > > > <nhdp-mib-authors> > We actually don't know, and will ask the chairs about that. > </nhdp-mib-authors> > > > Best regards > Ulrich and Bob
- [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2012… A. Jean Mahoney
- [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-12 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] [manet] review: draft-ietf-manet-nh… Ulrich Herberg
- Re: [Gen-art] [manet] review: draft-ietf-manet-nh… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: [manet] review: draft-ietf-man… Robert G Cole
- [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib-13 Joel M. Halpern