Re: [imss] MIB doctor review part 1 (SYNTAX Checks):

Bert,

I checked the "consistent indexing scheme" items below and concluded
that the indexing is fine as-is.  So, in

  ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/ftp/kzm/draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcsp-mib-01.txt

(which I cited in my message yesterday), I included all the fixes that
you requested below (including explicitly specifying ranges which are
the same as the implicit default range:-).

Keith.

> 1. T11-FC-SP-TC-MIB
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smicng T11-FC-SP-TC-MIB.inc
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-TC-MIB), (40,15) The first revision should match
>       the last update for MODULE-IDENTITY t11FcTcMIB
>    *** 0 errors and 1 warning in parsing
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smilint ./T11-FC-SP-TC-MIB
>    ./T11-FC-SP-TC-MIB:44: revision for last update is missing
> 
>    I think it would be good to to get the REVISION and LAST-UPDATED
>    timestamps in sync. No big deal though.
> 
> 2. T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smicng T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB.inc
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB), (404,20) Variable "ifIndex" in
> notification
>       "t11FcSpZsFabricJoinSuccessNotify" is an index for a table
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB), (420,20) Variable "ifIndex" in
> notification
>       "t11FcSpZsFabricJoinFailureNotify" is an index for a table
> 
>    *** 0 errors and 2 warnings in parsing
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smilint -l 6 -m -s ./T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB
>    .. OK
> 
>    I think this is OK in this situation.
> 
> 3. T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smicng T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB.inc
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1781,36) Item "t11FcSpSaTSelSpiDirection" in
>       sequence "T11FcSpSaTSelSpiEntry" has conflicting syntax specified
> 
>    bw: caused by INTEGER and T11FcSaDirection TC (which has underlying
>        SYNTAX of INTEGER (enumerated). So I am not sure it is a real
>        error. At the other hand, the/a fix is easy, namely change
> 
>        T11FcSpSaTSelSpiEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiInboundSpi     T11FcSpiIndex,
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiTrafSelIndex   Unsigned32,
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiDirection      INTEGER,
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiTrafSelPtr     Unsigned32
>        }
> 
>        into:
> 
>        T11FcSpSaTSelSpiEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiInboundSpi     T11FcSpiIndex,
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiTrafSelIndex   Unsigned32,
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiDirection      T11FcSaDirection,
>           t11FcSpSaTSelSpiTrafSelPtr     Unsigned32
>        }
> 
>        It would also make it more consistent with other places where you
>        have used T11FcSaDirection TC.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (512,14) Index item "t11FcSpSaPropIndex" must
>       be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: I tend to agree with that. For example I wonder of zero is a
> valid
>        index value. If it is, then we better explicitly include it (and
> add 
>        text to the DESCRIPTION clause what that means). If it is not,
>        then we better exclude it.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (684,14) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaTSelPropListIndex"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (684,42) Index item "t11FcSpSaTSelPropIndex"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: same story for those above 2 error messages.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (928,14) Index item "t11FcSpSaTransListIndex"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (928,39) Index item "t11FcSpSaTransIndex"
> must
>       be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: same story for those above 2 error messages.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1069,42) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaTSelDrByPrecedence"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: would be easy to fix in TC module:
> 
>    T11FcSpPrecedence ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>       DISPLAY-HINT "d"
>       STATUS       current
>       DESCRIPTION
>            "The precedence of a Traffic Selector.  If a frame
>            matches with two or more Traffic Selectors, then the match
>            which takes precedence is the one with the Traffic Selector
>            having the numerically smallest precedence value.  Note that
>            precedence values are not necessarily contiguous."
>       SYNTAX   Unsigned32  -- the default range: (0..4294967295)
> 
> 
>     Why not just specify that range. It makes sense (I guess) that
>     a value of zero in this case is valid, and so would also be
>     a valid/acceptable INDEX value. We betetr make that explicit
>     (or so I think).
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1259,38) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaPairInboundSpi"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: same as above.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1457,38) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaTSelNegInIndex"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: SO is zero a valid/acceptable index? If so we better explicitly
>        include that. If not, then we must exclude it.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1624,38) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaTSelNegOutPrecedence"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: see comment above on the use of T11FcSpPrecedence TC
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1774,14) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaTSelSpiInboundSpi"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: see above
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1774,42) Index item
> "t11FcSpSaTSelSpiTrafSelIndex"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: Is zero a valid/acceptable value. It seems to me that in this
> case
>        we prefer NOT to allow for zero. So make that explicit.
> 
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1257,32) Row "t11FcSpSaPairEntry" does not
> have
>       a consistent indexing scheme - index items from current table must
> come
>       after index items from other tables
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1456,32) Row "t11FcSpSaTSelNegInEntry" does
> not
>       have a consistent indexing scheme - cannot specify an index item
> from
>       additional "base row" t11FcSpSaPairEntry, since can have only one
>       "base row" which is t11FcSpSaIfEntry
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1623,32) Row "t11FcSpSaTSelNegOutEntry" does
> not
>       have a consistent indexing scheme - cannot specify an index item
> from
>       additional "base row" t11FcSpSaPairEntry, since can have only one
>       "base row" which is t11FcSpSaIfEntry
>    W: f(T11-FC-SP-SA-MIB), (1772,32) Row "t11FcSpSaTSelSpiEntry" does
> not
>       have a consistent indexing scheme - cannot specify an index item
>       from additional "base row" t11FcSpSaPairEntry, since can have only
>       one "base row" which is t11FcSpSaIfEntry
> 
>    The "non-consistent indexing scheme" issue is possibly just a
> warning.
>    In these cases I always ask the author: Pls check that what you did
>    is what you intended. If so, then I think the above 4 are fine.
>    I must say that the indexing certainly is not immediately obvious.
>    I will need to go look in detail to convince myself.
> 
>    *** 12 errors and 4 warnings in parsing
> 
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smilint -l 6 -m -s ./T11-FC-SP-ZONING-MIB
>    .. OK
> 
> 4. T11-FC-SP-POLICY-MIB
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smicng T11-FC-SP-POLICY-MIB.inc
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-POLICY-MIB), (1528,14) Index item
>       "t11FcSpPoAuthProtIdentifier" must be defined with syntax
>       that includes a range
> 
>    bw: Assuming that http://www.t11.org/ftp/t11/pub/fc/sp/06-157v3.pdf 
>        is the proper document to look at, for table 11.
>        From that table one could conclude that value zero is part
>        of the "all others", but at the other hand, I would have put
>        value zero as reserved at the top of the table if value
>        zero is valid. 
>    
>    So... is it valid? In any event, I would make the range (0-4billion)
>    or 1-4billion) explicit I think.
> 
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-POLICY-MIB), (3443,14) Index item
>       "t11FcSpPoNaAuthProtIdentifier" must be defined with syntax
>       that includes a range
> 
>    bw: same story.
> 
>    *** 2 errors and 0 warnings in parsing
> 
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smilint -l 6 -m -s ./T11-FC-SP-POLICY-MIB
>    .. OK
> 
> 5. T11-FC-SP-CERTS-MIB
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smicng T11-FC-SP-CERTS-MIB.inc
>    E: f(T11-FC-SP-CERTS-MIB), (90,38) Index item "t11FcSpCertIndex"
>       must be defined with syntax that includes a range
> 
>    bw: seems (to me) that we would want to exlude zero as an
>        acceptable value.
> 
>    *** 1 error and 0 warnings in parsing
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smilint -l 6 -m -s ./T11-FC-SP-CERTS-MIB
>    .. OK
> 
> 6. T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smicng T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB.inc
>    Successful parsing
> 
>    C:\bwijnen\smicng\imss>smilint -l 6 -m -s
> ./T11-FC-SP-AUTHENTICATION-MIB
>    .. OK
> 
> 
> Bert 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imss mailing list
> imss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss
> 

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
imss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss