RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
"Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 22 February 2007 09:45 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKAWO-0001be-BL; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:45:52 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKAWM-0001b9-Su for hubmib@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:45:50 -0500
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([135.245.0.33]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKAWL-0006Mi-Fw for hubmib@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:45:50 -0500
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id l1M9jVH3029213; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:45:32 -0600 (CST)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:45:31 -0600
Received: from DEEXC1U02.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.30]) by DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:45:30 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:45:29 +0100
Message-ID: <D4D321F6118846429CD792F0B5AF471F2EAB7B@DEEXC1U02.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <9C1CAB2B65E62D49A10E49DFCD68EF3EED19D1@il-mail.actelis.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
Thread-Index: AccSOnrmhQlHEtW9SfqC9BBdl0yl4wAAWy5gCgjMysAGWfvNAABLZN1QAAtQiKAAKFNj4AADNO3wACQs5cA=
References: <9C1CAB2B65E62D49A10E49DFCD68EF3EED19D1@il-mail.actelis.net>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Edward Beili <EdwardB@actelis.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2007 09:45:30.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[3085B370:01C75666]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d
Cc: "Dan Romascanu (E-mail)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Hub Mib <hubmib@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: hubmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ethernet Interfaces an Hub MIB WG <hubmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib>, <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:hubmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib>, <mailto:hubmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: hubmib-bounces@ietf.org
Thank you Edward! WG members, As soon as the new document shows up I plan to issue another WG Last Call, so people can check the latest changes. Pls be prepared! Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Beili [mailto:EdwardB@actelis.com] > Sent: woensdag 21 februari 2007 22:54 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Hub Mib; Dan Romascanu (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] My review of: > draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt > > Bert, > > - RFC3410 is moved to Informative References > > - RFCs 2863, 2864, 3635, G.991.2 and G.992.1 are moved to > Normative References > > - I left ANFP as an Informative Reference, since it's purpose > in the MIB is to serve an example. > > The latest version of the draft is attached together with the > extracted MIB files. > I'm sending it to the internet-drafts, so it'll be published > in a day or two. > > Thanks for your thorough reviews, > -E. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 16:51 > > To: Edward Beili > > Cc: Dan Romascanu (E-mail); Hub Mib > > Subject: RE: [Hubmib] My review of: > > draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt > > > > Looks good now. One thing (I should have seen yesterday > too) is that > > you need to move a few informative refrences to the normative > > references and vice versa > > > > - I think RFC3410 is informative (it is also an informational > > RFC). > > > > - RFC2863 and RFC2864 are normative, because we IMPORT from those. > > > > - Since we use them in REFERENCE clauses or we use profiles > > from (as listed in DESCRIPTION clauses), I think that also > > ANFP< but certainly 991.2 and 992.1 are normative, no? > > > > - Since we state: > > 3.4. Relation to Ethernet-Like and MAU MIB modules > > > > The implementation of EtherLike-MIB [RFC3635] and MAU-MIB > > [I-D.ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis] is REQUIRED for the EFMCu > interfaces. > > > > We probably also better make RFC3635 a normative ref. > > > > With that I think we would be ready. > > > > Further, I would like to react to a few of Ed's rebuttals: > > > > > > - But I do want you to fix SMICng reported error: > > > > > > > > E: f(rfc2864.mi2), (168,26) Item "ifStackGroup2" should be > > IMPORTed > > > > > > > > since you do list that as a mandatory group. > > > > > > [EB] ifStackGroup2 is already imported, I've fixed that in > > the version > > > I sent before. > > > > > > > My appology, the error is in RFC2864, not in the EFM-CU-MIB. > > > > > > > >- Did we resolve the use of Rowstatus for the ifCapStackTable > > > > > > and ifInvCapStackTable? In any event, pls re-check the > > > > > > feedback we've got on that. I do not think that what we > > > > > > currently have in the MIB module is acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > [EB] Replaced with TruthValue. > > > > > > > > This is much better. > > > > I wonder if it would now be better to rename the object from > > > > ifCapStackStatus to ifCapStackCapability to better > represent its > > > > purpose. Same for possibly renaming ifInvCapStackStatus into > > > > ifInvCapStackCapability. > > > > > > > > I am not hung up on it though. > > > > > > [EB] ifCapStack already stands for "Interface Capability Stack" - > > > appending "Capability" would make it "Interface Capability Stack > > > Capability". How about: ifCapStackAbility ? > > > Or we can leave it ifCapStackStatus, to emphasize its > > similarity with > > > IfStackTable > > > > > > > Your argument for consistency with ifCapStackStatus makes sense. > > And as I said, I am not hung up on it. > > So I am OK now. > > > > > > > [EB] I've found only one table without the persistency definition > > > (efmCuPme10PStatusTable) and corrected it - now all tables > > contain the > > > persistency behavior definition in the DESCRIPTION clause for the > > > table. > > > Basically only the Status tables are non-persistent. > > > Would that be satisfactory? > > > > > > > Yep. > > > > I think we made good progress. > > > > Pls correct the references (as stated at the top of this > > email) and then you can submit to internet-drafts as far as I am > > concenrned. > > > > Next step is then (another) W Last Call to givbe anyone a chance to > > look at the latest changes. > > > > Bert > > > _______________________________________________ Hubmib mailing list Hubmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib
- [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-m… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Edward Beili
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Edward Beili
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Edward Beili
- RE: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- [Hubmib] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-m… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: [Hubmib] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)