[Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Wed, 18 October 2006 16:02 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaDs9-0003tQ-GO; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:02:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaDpv-0001yg-F3 for hubmib@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:00:07 -0400
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com ([135.245.0.37]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaDbF-0000Wp-OF for hubmib@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:45:00 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id k9IFioUp007654 for <hubmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:44:57 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <R9BLQ8BR>; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:44:49 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550ADAA767@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Hubmib Mailing List (E-mail)" <hubmib@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:44:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 932cba6e0228cc603da43d861a7e09d8
Subject: [Hubmib] My review of: draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-cu-mib-06.txt
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
My WG LC review comments are here. For the EFM-U-MIB itself I will do a separate posting to the list. - Abstract 3rd line This document proposes an extension to the Ethernet-like Interfaces By the time we get published as RFC, we no longer "propose". So how about: This document describes extensions to the Ethernet-like Interfaces - Page 7, a nit: // pottentially be connected to the PCS s/pottentially/potentially/ // for PCS[i] and there room for another PME in the s/there room/there is room/ ?? - A nit/typo on page 10: | ifIndex | Interface index. Note that each PME and each PCS | | | in the EFMCu PHY MUST have a unique index, as | | | there some PCS and PME specific attributes | | | accessible only on the PCS or PME level. | s/as there some/as there are some/ ?? - a type in 2nd para in sect 4.2 The PME profiles are defined in efmCuPme2BProfileTable and efmCu10PProfileTable for 2BASE-TL and 10PASS-TS PMEs respectively. I think: s/efmCu10PProfileTable/efmCuPme10PProfileTable/ So insert "Pme" - SMICng IF-CAP-STACK-MIB tells me: W: f(IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.mi2), (195,17) Row "ifInvCapStackEntry" does not have a consistent indexing scheme - index items must be in same order as used in INDEX clause for "base row" ifStackEntry The above is OK, it is an INVERTED table. So we can ignore the warning. E: f(IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.mi2), (291,13) Item "ifInvStackGroup" should be IMPORTed I think that error should be fixed and we shoul dimport that group. - SMICNg EFM-CU-MIB tells me: W: f(EFM-CU-MIB.mi2), (300,21) Item "efmCuPAFDiscoveryCode" should have SIZE specified Do we know a reasonable size for this? In the pseudo code on pages 7/8 it speaks about a 6-byte (octet) code. And so does the DESCRIPTION clause. Is it always fixed to 6 octets? Now and in future? If so, I would suggest to use SYNTAX PhysAddress (SIZE(6)) W: f(EFM-CU-MIB.mi2), (1178,21) Item "efmCuPAFRemoteDiscoveryCode" should have SIZE specified Same story for the above. W: f(EFM-CU-MIB.mi2), (2925,23) For "efmCuPmeSubTypesSupported", syntax is identical This is probably OK, although it looks a bit weird: OBJECT efmCuPmeSubTypesSupported SYNTAX BITS { ieee2BaseTLO(0), ieee2BaseTLR(1), ieee10PassTSO(2), ieee10PassTSR(3) } DESCRIPTION "Support for all subtypes is not required. However at least one value SHALL be supported" - W.r.t. the SYNTAX of objects ifCapStackStatus and ifInvCapStackStatus I think it would be much better to use a SYNTAX of TruthValue. See my separate posting on this topic to the HubMIB WG list. - I believe that instead of ifCapStackConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ifCapStackObjects 3 } It would be better to adhere to the strcuture suggested by RFC4181 page 38 and so use instead: ifCapStackConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { ifCapStackMIB 2 } - I still need to review the EFM-CU-MIB module. I will do a separate posting on that one once I am done. - In the Security Considerations section I see capitalized MAY which I think is not what RFC2119 intended. Unless you can explain to me why this capilaized MAY makes sense, I would prefer if we change it to just lowercase "may" for all occurences in the Security Considerations section. - 2nd para on page 83 (a NIT): Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), pls change "IPSec" into "IPsec", that is a lower case "s". The current MIB security template has it fixed. I know that the Security ADs want/prefer the proper spelling. - IANA Considerations. Since you state that some values SHALL be defined in the IANA-MAU-MIB, I think that you make rfc3636bis a normative reference, while it is now listed under informative. And by making that document normative, you/we automagically make sure that this efmCuMIB will not get published before 3636bis. You must also request/ask (in IANA COnsiderations section) that IANA assigns two new OID branches for ifCapStackMIB ::= { mib-2 ZZZ } efmCuMIB ::= { mib-2 YYY } - If/wehen we do a revision, we must adhere to new boilerplate. That means we must change all occurences of: Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). into Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). If you are using xml2rfc, thsi can be achieved with: ipr="full3978update" You can/could not yet know this. I know that this starts on Nov 1st (because I was asked to update the IDChecklist.html. 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)