[ipcdn] Re: AD review of: draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-14.txt

Bert - I hope to have Jean-Francois' comments and have them incorporated in time for
submission by Wednesday. Here are specific responses to your comments (interspersed):

The other changes so far include:
-- IPR and copyright boilerplate changes
-- updated reference to BPI+ spec.

- Wilson

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:

> Wilson (and WG). Sorry that it took long (again) to do another
> good check of this MIB document.
>
> I think this doc is basically OK now. I did find some small things
> as per below, and it would be good to fix those at some point.
> I propose that I issue an IETF Last Call, and that the below comments
> are considered as the initial comments on such an IETF Last Call
> and that you address them (or answer them) as part of any other comments
> that may come up from IETF Last Call.
>
> Wilson/WG-chair(s), pls let me know if that sounds like a plan or if
> you ratehr address/answer the below first.
>
> What I did find is:
>
> >From SMICng (strict checking). I thought I had reported this before ( see I
> did, but you probably opted to not do it since it is not mandatory).
> Oh well, I am including it anayway (again), because I really belive it
> is betetr to include them.
>
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (478,15) Item "diffServMIBDataPathGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (479,15) Item "diffServMIBClfrGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (480,15) Item "diffServMIBClfrElementGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (481,15) Item "diffServMIBMultiFieldClfrGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (482,15) Item "diffServMIBActionGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (483,15) Item "diffServMIBAlgDropGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (484,15) Item "diffServMIBCounterGroup" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (487,11) Item "diffServDataPathStatus" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (493,11) Item "diffServClfrStatus" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (499,11) Item "diffServClfrElementStatus" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (506,11) Item "diffServMultiFieldClfrAddrType" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (512,11) Item "diffServMultiFieldClfrSrcAddr" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (518,11) Item "diffServMultiFieldClfrDstAddr" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (524,11) Item "diffServAlgDropStatus" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (530,11) Item "diffServDataPathStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (536,11) Item "diffServClfrStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (542,11) Item "diffServClfrElementStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (548,11) Item "diffServMultiFieldClfrStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (554,11) Item "diffServActionStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (560,11) Item "diffServCountActStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (566,11) Item "diffServAlgDropStorage" should be IMPORTed
>   E: f(ipcdnsub.mi2), (572,11) Item "diffServAlgDropType" should be IMPORTed
>

Added these to the IMPORTS clause as suggested.

>
> According to our MIB review guidelines (draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt)
> section 4.4, 3rd para:
>    Note that exemptions to this general requirement are granted by RFC
>    2580 Sections 5.4.3 and 6.5.2 for descriptors of objects appearing in
>    the OBJECT clause of a MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement or in the
>    VARIATION clause of an AGENT-CAPABILITIES statement.  Some MIB
>    compilers also grant exemptions to descriptors of notifications
>    appearing in a VARIATION clause and to descriptors of object groups
>    and notification groups referenced by a MANDATORY-GROUPS clause, a
>    GROUP clause, or an INCLUDES clause, although RFC 2580 (through
>    apparent oversight) does not mention those cases.  The exemptions are
>    sometimes seen as unhelpful because they make IMPORTS rules more
>    complicated and inter-module dependencies less obvious than they
>    otherwise would be.  External symbols referenced by compliance
>    statements and capabilities statements MAY therefore be listed in the
>    IMPORTS statement;  if this is done, it SHOULD be done consistently.
>
> So it is not mandatory to do the IMPORTs, but in my view it will help in
> many places with less warning/errors. So may I suggest to add the IMPORT
> statement for the above.
>
> Also, all documents from whihc you IMPORT (implied or explicit) you must
> put in normative reference section (which you have done). But all such
> references MUST have a citation in the text (see MIB review guidelines,
> (draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-03.txt, sect 3.5):
>    3.5.  References Sections
>
>    Section 4.7f of [RFC2223bis] specifies the requirements for the
>    references sections.  In particular, there MUST be separate lists of
>    normative and informative references, each in a separate section.
>    The style SHOULD follow that of recently published RFCs.
>
>    The standard MIB boilerplate available at
>    http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html includes lists of
>    normative and informative references that MUST appear in all IETF
>    specifications that contain MIB modules.  If items from other MIB
>    modules appear in an IMPORTS statement in the Definitions section,
>    then the specifications containing those MIB modules MUST be included
>    in the list of normative references.  When items are imported from an
>    IANA-maintained MIB module the corresponding normative reference
>    SHALL point to the on-line version of that MIB module.  It is the
>    policy of the RFC Editor that all references must be cited in the
>    text;  such citations MUST appear in the overview section where
>    documents containing imported definitions (other those already
>    mentioned in the MIB boilerplate) are required to be mentioned (cf.
>    Section 3.2).
>
> You have such a reference for RFC3291 (as required), but no citation
> to [RFC3291] anywhere in the document. Can you pls add it at
> some point in the text.
>
> I have some other nits/questions:
>
> 1. Desription clause of docsSubMgtCpeIpIndex states, towards the end:
>
>        the table and the packet is forwarded.  If the number of entries
>        equals the docsSubMgtCpeControlMaxCpeIp, AND
>        docsSubMgtCpeControlActive is true, then the packet is dropped.
>        Otherwise the packet is forwarded. "
>
>    In the case that the packet is forwarded, will then also an entry be
>    created? That is not clear to me. May I suggest to add some text to
>    make that 100% clear?
>

That paragraph reworded to:

    If docsSubMgtCpeControlActive is true and a CMTS receives
    an IP packet from a CM that contains a source IP address which
    does not match one of the docsSubMgtCpeIpAddr entries for this
    CM, one of two things occurs.  If the number of entries is less
    than docsSubMgtCpeControlMaxCpeIp, the source address is added to
    the table and the packet is forwarded.  If the number of entries
    equals the docsSubMgtCpeControlMaxCpeIp, then the packet is
    dropped."

>
> 2. In description clause of docsSubMgtCmFilterTable it states:
>
>        Zero is a distinguished value, indicating that the default
>        filtering action is to be taken, rather than that associated
>
>    Mmm... a value for the table? I guess you mean that such a zero
>    value "in any of the columns of the table has a special maening.
>    Right? Might want to make that clearer.
>

now reads:

    For each of the columns in this table, zero is a distinguished
    value, indicating that the default filtering action is to be
    taken, rather than that associated with a filter group number.
    Zero is used if the filter group is not signaled by DOCSIS
    registration.

>
> 3. I see:
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6      docsSubMgtCmFilterTable
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1    docsSubMgtCmFilterEntry
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtSubFilterDownstream
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtSubFilterUpstream
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.3  docsSubMgtCmFilterDownstream
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.4  docsSubMgtCmFilterUpstream
>    I think that for naming consistency, it might be better to rename
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtSubFilterDownstream
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtSubFilterUpstream
>    into something like:
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.1  docsSubMgtCmSubFilterDownstream
>      1.3.6.1.2.1.xx.1.6.1.2  docsSubMgtCMmubFilterUpstream
>    so as to make it clearer (from the name/descriptor) that these 2
>    objects exists in the docsSubMgtCmFilterTable.

renamed, per your last exchange with Eduardo, to:

    docsSubMgtCmFilterSubDownstream
    docsSubMgtCmFilterSubUpstream
    docsSubMgtCmFilterCmDownstream
    docsSubMgtCmFilterCmUpstream

>
> 4. I am a bit worried about the hard limit (range) of 1-255 for FilterGroupIndex.
>    Is this enough forever in the future? Or would it be wiser to use a larger
>    range (and limit via MODULE-COMPLIANCE, as you already do)?
>    I see it was larger before, and that you changed it to this smaller range.
>    So I guess you are doing this consciously.

I was mistaken regarding the signaled width of this item - it is actually 2 octets. I
changed the range to 1..65535 to match the actual signaled width.

>
> 5. In description clause of docsSubMgtFilterGroupIndex I see:
>
>        the four. Because this is the only field in this table, it is
>        read-only, contrary to the usual SNMP custom of making indices
>        not-accessible.
>
>    Probably better to change SNMP into SMI.
>

done.

>
> 6. In the Security Considerations, I think I would change the 2nd para
>    to make a positive statement, namely that you MUST follow recommendations
>    in sect 2.2.6 in order to deploy an effective filtering.

changed to:

Effective network filtering of TCP traffic requires that implementors
MUST follow the recommendations in section 2.2.6.

>
> Thanks,
> Bert

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