Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt

[Thomas Dietz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

find comments inline.

-- 
Thomas Dietz
NEC Europe Ltd., NEC Laboratories, Network Research Division, 69115
Heidelberg, Germany

NEC Europe Limited, Registered in England 2832014
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:40 PM
> To: IPFIX Working Group
> Subject: Re: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have one more comment - please add it to the review:
> 
> T4. As per  [I-D.ietf-opsawg-mib-floats]:
> 
>    o  Since these textual conventions are defined in terms of the OCTET
>       STRING type, the SMI's mechanisms for formally setting range
>       constraints are not available.  MIB designers using these textual
>       conventions will need to use DESCRIPTION clauses to spell out any
>       applicable range constraints beyond those implied by the
>       underlying IEEE types.
> 

A range was already given in the description.


>    o  Whenever these textual conventions are used in a MIB module, the
>       associated DESCRIPTION clause will need to clearly specify whether
>       denormalized numbers, NaNs ("not a number") or infinities are
>       permitted, along with any special semantics associated with these
>       cases.  This is especially important for writeable objects.
> 

I added a sentence that excludes NaN and infinity. Hope the description is
now sound.

Best Regards,

Thomas

> As the object psampSampUniProbProbability uses the Float64TC - these
> requirements need to be taken into consideration.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:19 PM
> > To: IPFIX Working Group
> > Subject: [IPFIX] AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have performed the AD review of draft-ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib-03.txt.
> > This document is in good shape and I am sending it to IETF Last Call.
> > Please address the comments below together with the other IETF LC
> > comments.
> >
> > The technical comments are marked T and the editorial comments are
> > marked E.
> >
> > T1.
> >
> >         Float64TC
> >            FROM FLOAT-TC-MIB           -- draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float
> >
> > Actually will need to be published before or simultaneously with this
> > document, in order to satisfy the normative reference. Leaving
> > draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float would be confusing, we need the RFC number
> > here. I suggest to include here (as a comment) a note to the RFC
> Editor
> > that mentions that draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-float is to be replaced with
> > the RFC number of that document, and the note deleted.
> >
> > T2. Why do psampSampCountBasedAvail, psampSampTimeBasedAvail,
> > psampSampRandOutOfNAvail, psampSampUniProbAvail,
> > psampFiltPropMatchAvail, psampFiltHashAvail have DEFVAL clauses? These
> > are read-only objects, so the values must be configured by some other
> > means (not by SNMP) and just read by the agent.
> >
> > T3. There is no need to include the following in the IANA
> > considerations
> > section:
> >
> >            psampSampCountBased    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 2 }
> >            psampSampTimeBased     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 3 }
> >            psampSampRandOutOfN    { ipfixSelectorFunctions 4 }
> >            psampSampUniProb       { ipfixSelectorFunctions 5 }
> >            psampFiltPropMatch     { ipfixSelectorFunctions 6 }
> >            psampFiltHash          { ipfixSelectorFunctions 7 }
> >
> > These are already assigned in the MIB module and no IANA action is
> > required for them.
> >
> >
> > E1. The contents of sections 3 and 4 are similar, but the formatting
> of
> > the texts in the two sections is different. I suggest to fix this
> using
> > for section 4 the same format as in section 3, which is easier to
> read.
> >
> > E2. Page 5 - second paragraph s/as defiend/as defined/
> >
> > E3. Please explain the meaning of each enumerated value in the
> > DESCRIPTION clause of psampFiltHashFunction
> >
> > E4. Please detail the 'corresponding sampling function' in the
> > DESCRIPTION clause of each one of the conformance groups under
> > MODULE-COMPLIANCE.
> >
> >
> > Thanks and Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPFIX mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix