[ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt
Juergen Quittek <quittek@ccrle.nec.de> Thu, 17 June 2004 13:20 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27955 for <ipcdn-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bawon-00052G-1X for ipcdn-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:20:37 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Bawno-0004iO-00 for ipcdn-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:19:38 -0400
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Bawms-00046u-00 for ipcdn-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:18:38 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bawih-0001jE-Pu; Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:14:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaiNs-0007Yw-2R for ipcdn@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:55:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20172 for <ipcdn@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:55:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BaiNn-00045o-QY for ipcdn@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:55:47 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BaiJr-00034P-00 for ipcdn@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:51:46 -0400
Received: from tokyo.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BaiFr-0001mF-00; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:47:35 -0400
Received: from venus.office (venus.office [10.1.1.11]) by tokyo.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D102C911; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:47:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [192.168.1.3]) by venus.office (Postfix on SuSE Linux eMail Server 3.0) with ESMTP id 9ED8C3B530; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:47:02 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:46:59 +0200
From: Juergen Quittek <quittek@ccrle.nec.de>
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, disman@ietf.org
Message-ID: <2147483647.1087429619@localhost>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:14:18 -0400
Cc: ipcdn@ietf.org
Subject: [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ipcdn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP over Cable Data Network <ipcdn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipcdn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn>, <mailto:ipcdn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipcdn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipcdn-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear all, I just posted a new version of the remote operation MIB modules. Following Eduardo's suggestion I added Minimum Compliancy statements in addition to the existing full compliancy statements to each of the three MIB modules. I also had to (syntactically) modify the existing compliancy statements. Please have a close look at all six MODULE-COMPLIANCE macros. Until the document becomes available at the I-D repository, you can preview it at ftp://ftp.ccrle.nec.de/pub/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-02.txt There was not much response on my questions on how to define the minimum compliance statements. I preferred leaving read-only objects in place to creating non-consecutive numbering of objects in table entries. I am not dogmatic about this and suggestions for changes are very welcome. For simplifying the review here is a list of objects and groups for which the full and minimum compliance statements differ: pingHistoryGroup, pingNotificationsGroup pingCtlDataFill pingCtlFrequency pingCtlMaxRows pingCtlTrapGeneration pingCtlProbeFailureFilter pingCtlTestFailureFilter pingCtlDescr pingCtlByPassRouteTable pingProbeHistoryTime traceRouteHistoryGroup traceRouteCtlByPassRouteTable traceRouteCtlDontFragment traceRouteCtlInitialTtl traceRouteCtlFrequency traceRouteCtlDescr traceRouteCtlMaxRows traceRouteCtlTrapGeneration traceRouteCtlCreateHopsEntries traceRouteCtlRowStatus traceRouteHopsLastGoodProbe lookupCtlRowStatus Beyond the compliance statement I just made two changes to the document: 1. Added new section 3.4 introducing the compliance statement 2. Extended DESCRIPTION clause of object lookupPurgeTime by one sentence: "A value of 0 indicates that automatic deletion of entries is disabled." Thanks, Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@ccrle.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.ccrle.nec.de --On 29.04.2004 14:29 h -0700 Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > Are there any objections to proceding as Juergen and Eduardo suggest? > I'd like to see comment (pro or contra) on the specific questions > Juergen raised below. > > Randy, disman WG chair > >> From: "Juergen Quittek" <quittek@ccrle.nec.de> >> To: "Eduardo Cardona" <e.cardona@CableLabs.com>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; <disman@ietf.org> >> Cc: "Ipcdn List (E-mail)" <ipcdn@ietf.org> >> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 1:11 AM >> Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt >> > >> Eduardo, >> >> Thank you for raising this issue and my apologies for this >> very late reply. >> >> I ran into similar problems several times where a well designed >> technology was too mighty or too general for being implemented >> at small devices. >> >> Your suggestions aim at introducing additional MODULE-COMPLIANCE >> clauses to the PING-MIB, the TRACEROUTE-MIB and LOOKUP-MIB modules >> for allowing simpler implementations with smaller footprints. >> >> I support your proposal, but have a few comments, see below. >> I am willing to make suggestions for minimalCompliance clauses >> for the MIB modules, but first the WG should agree on two issues: >> >> - Is it agreed to add such clauses, that definitely require >> less funtionality to be implemented? >> >> - what is the preferred procedure for columnar objects that >> are not required for minimal compliancy? We can either >> allow them to be missing completely. But this would result >> in non-consecutive numbering of the remaining objects in >> the minimal tables. Or we require them to be implemented >> as read-only indicating that the feature that they would >> serve in full compliancy is not supported. >> >> Please find further comments inline. >> >> Juergen >> -- >> Juergen Quittek quittek@ccrle.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 >> NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 >> Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.ccrle.nec.de >> >> >> --On 02.03.2004 10:04 h -0700 Eduardo Cardona wrote: >> > Randy, >> > >> > Few comments, >> > >> > I review the MIB and appears compelling respect to previous RFC >> > >> > Just one comment >> > >> > >> > (*) traceRouteCtlMiscOptions >> > It appears to me an uncanny object and rather implementations may opt to >> > extend the capabilities in the private branch, could leave with that to >> > avoid deprecation, of if there are field implementations. >> >> Currently, the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause traceRouteCompliance requests >> implementation of this object, but it may be implemented as read-only >> and returning always a value of zero, if there is not further semantics >> defined for it. Do you suggest to completely remove the object or to >> state in the MODULE-COMPLIANCE clause that it does not need to be >> implemented? >> >> > Regardless of the additions to the MIB I apologize for the late notice, >> > >> > Before sending a complete proposal and get your concept of the best >> > approach, below is the proposal to add a simplified Compliance >> > statement for devices not requiring to keep constant status of >> > PING/TRACEROUTE operations, only remote operation per operator request. >> > >> > >> > We are looking at your comments about the clear overlap in >> > draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt >> > With IPCDN draft >> > http://www.ipcdn.org/drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-cable-gateway-tools-mib-00. >> > txt ( currently out of date in IETF drafts site) which is clearly a >> > subset of the DISMAN-PING-MIB >> > Lectors refer to >> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipcdn/current/msg00818. >> > html >> > >> > Should the proposal below being include in the remops MIB or should we >> > update IPCDN cable gateway Tools MIB module to be just the compliance >> > statement outlined below? >> >> I doubt that it is a good idea to replicate large portions of the PING-MIB >> in the IPCDN cable gateway Tools MIB module, as it is done right now. >> >> > RFC 3014 (LOG-MIB) introduces the concept of "named log" and "null named >> > log" default entry for devices not supporting the named log >> > Named log is analog to disman remops draft for "OwnerIndex" and >> > "TestName" where default entries are created >> > (null owner, null TestName) for a manager requested operation of PING/ >> > TRACEROUTE, NSLOOKUP, mostly for small foot-print devices with no >> > network monitoring role at the connectivity level as pretended with this >> > updated RFC. >> >> I don't think the remops MIB modules forbid null-named entries in the >> respective tables. But currently the support of a read-write >> pingCtlRowStatus is mandatory. >> >> Is your concrete suggestion to add something like >> >> OBJECT XXRowStatus >> MIN-ACCESS read-only >> DESCRIPTION >> "Implementations may disallow the creation of named entries." >> >> with XX=pingCtl,traceRouteCtl,lookupCtl? >> >> > In summary A new Compliance Statement for small devices with no >> > monitoring capabilities to : >> > 1) remove the constant pulling and login information >> > 2) remove the test row creation >> > - CTL* Results* tables only default entries (null owner, null >> > TestName) >> > 3) History* tables not required. >> > - New basicGroups to exclude History* objects and other objects >> > which are not relevant to the simplified >> > system. >> > - Create an additional set of Compliance statements to require the >> > new Groups and other objects Compliance >> > requirements MIN-ACCESS clauses mainly >> > >> > Schema of the content of the new Compliance statement: >> > >> > List of objects not to include in basicPingGroup OBJECT-GROUP clause >> > qnd/or hints for OBJECT Compliances: >> > pingMaxConcurrentRequests -- remove >> >> Could also be read-only returning 1. >> >> > pingCtlDataFill -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only default >> > value is OK >> > pingCtlFrequency -- remove Only one test >> >> Could also be read-only returning 0. >> >> > pingCtlType -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > pingCtlByPassRouteTable -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > pingCtlDSField -- MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > pingCtlStorageType -- remove >> > pingCtlRowStatus -- SYNTAX RowStatus (notReady(2) >> > WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus (active(1), notInService(3) >> >> Why don't you consider removing this object? >> >> > pingCtlIfIndex -- not to include >> > pingProbeHistory* -- not to include. >> > >> > List of objects not to include in basicTraceRouteGroup OBJECT-GROUP >> > clause and/or hints for OBJECT Compliances: >> > traceRouteMaxConcurrentRequests -- remove >> > traceRouteCtlType -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > traceRouteCtlDSField -- MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > traceRouteCtlByPassRouteTable -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > traceRouteCtlIfIndex -- not to include >> > traceRouteCtlMiscOptions -- not to include >> > traceRouteCtlDontFragment -- remove or MIN-ACCESS read-only >> > traceRouteCtlInitialTtl -- remove or MIN-ACCESS >> > traceRouteCtlFrequency -- remove only one test >> > traceRouteCtlDescr -- remove >> > traceRouteCtlCreateHopsEntries -- remove HopsEntries not required. >> > traceRouteCtlRowStatus -- SYNTAX RowStatus (notReady(2) >> > WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus (active(1), notInService(3) >> > traceRouteCtlStorageType -- remove >> > traceRouteProbeHistory* -- not to include. >> > >> > List of objects not to include in basicLookupGroup OBJECT-GROUP clause >> > and/or hints for OBJECT Compliances: >> > lookupMaxConcurrentRequests -- remove >> > lookupPurgeTime -- remove >> > lookupCtlRowStatus -- SYNTAX RowStatus (notReady(2) >> > WRITE-SYNTAX RowStatus (active(1), notInService(3) >> > >> > >> > Best Regards >> > >> > Eduardo >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] >> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 6:44 PM >> > To: disman@ietf.org >> > Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on >> > draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi - >> > >> >> From: Eduardo Cardona <e.cardona@CableLabs.com> >> >> Sent: Mar 2, 2004 9:25 AM >> >> To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, disman@ietf.org >> >> Subject: RE: [Disman] WG last call on >> >> draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-01.txt >> > ... >> >> One simple note, I tough last call was March 5th >> > >> > No, it was supposed to end March 2. However, I'm not >> > going to hand it to our AD until I can be reasonably sure >> > that it has received adequate review. >> > >> >> We at Cablelabs are interested in adding a simplified compliance >> >> statement for ad-hoc procedure call instead of a user entry schecule >> >> entry, so an user can do a one time execution e.g PING >> > >> > It would have been nice to have learned of this earlier, rather than >> > during WG last call. >> > >> >> The draft we had is almost complete, >> >> Would be that an opportunity to add that? I can post that tomorrow in >> >> the list if compeling >> > ... >> > >> > I'd like to have this discussion sooner rather than later, so please >> > make >> > your specific proposal as quickly as you can. My opinion as a technical >> > contributor is that the case for these changes would need to be fairly >> > compelling if they would result in the remote operations MIB cycling >> > at proposed rather than advancing to draft standard. As working group >> > chair, I want to ensure that whatever course we take reflects WG >> > consensus. So, balancing the need for bringing this to a conclusion >> > with >> > the need to ensure that the technical issues are properly considered, >> > I'll entertain discussion of this issue ("ad hoc procedure call") until >> > Friday noon (Korean Time). Shortly thereafter I'll make a call on >> > whether there is consensus to modify the draft regarding this specific >> > proposal. >> > >> > Randy >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ IPCDN mailing list IPCDN@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipcdn
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Randy Presuhn
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Juergen Quittek
- [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Randy Presuhn
- [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Randy Presuhn
- [ipcdn] RE: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Eduardo Cardona
- [ipcdn] Re: [Disman] WG last call on draft-ietf-d… Juergen Quittek
- [ipcdn] Disman WG last call on draft-ietf-disman-… Randy Presuhn