Comments to version 5.0 of Frame Relay DTE MIB
Alan Bartky <alan@xylan.com> Thu, 03 August 1995 23:10 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27662; 3 Aug 95 19:10 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27658; 3 Aug 95 19:10 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26825; 3 Aug 95 19:10 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27645; 3 Aug 95 19:10 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27641; 3 Aug 95 19:09 EDT
Received: from xylan.XYLAN.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26673; 3 Aug 95 19:09 EDT
Received: from omni.xylan.com by xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (xylan-mgw 1.0)) id AA00591; Thu, 3 Aug 95 16:10:16 PDT
Received: from bluejay.UUCP by omni.xylan.com (4.1/SMI-4.1 (omni 1.1)) id AA21347; Thu, 3 Aug 95 16:10:14 PDT
Received: from robin.xidc by irvine.XYLAN.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA29749; Thu, 3 Aug 95 15:55:52 PDT
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 15:55:52 -0700
X-Orig-Sender: iplpdn-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Alan Bartky <alan@xylan.com>
Message-Id: <9508032255.AA29749@irvine.XYLAN.COM>
To: cbrown@baynetworks.com, fred@cisco.com, carvalho@cisco.com
Subject: Comments to version 5.0 of Frame Relay DTE MIB
Cc: iplpdn@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, alan@xylan.com, artb@xylan.com
To Frame Relay MIBbers - Thanks to Nipun Basil of Develcon (who was kind enough to respond to my email), I now have a copy of the July 1995, Version 5 Frame Relay Draft MIB. I have edited my last contribution to bring it "up to date". Most of my comments still apply to the current version. I have also removed comments for changes/additions that I considered to be OK. ****************** General Comments: ****************** 1) The "frErr" section is missing. Looks like a typo by the editor of the document in that there is a .ro command at the end of an object as follows: > If it is not so defined, as would be the case with an > ipAddrEntry, it should be of type Other." > ::= { frCircuitEntry 20 }.so frErrTable.v2 I have kept the comments on the frErrTable section in this contribution based on Version 4 of the draft. 2) The RFC must be drafted in accordance to RFC1573 which states that new MIBs must state things such as how the Interface MIB for this sub layer is handled (e.g. Which octects are counted for ifInOctects). A lot of this text and guidelines can be borrowed from RFC 1604 (The Frame Relay DCE MIB). RFC1573 should also be mentioned in the text and added to the Reference section of the document. RFC1604 probably deserves a reference also. 3) This may seem like a nit, but it makes comparison harder. Many of the description fields are now indented/formatted differently. This makes it difficult to see what real changes have occurred using a "diff -w" Unix command between the two MIBs (RFC 1315 and the current draft). 4. In the example showing the relation of ifIndex for frame relay and lower devices, I would use (and also reference) the latest RS-232 MIB (RFC 1659) since it would be the one most agents would use in conjuction with RFC 1573 Interface MIB layering table. ******************* Specific Comments: ******************* < ansiT1-617-D (3), -- ANSI T1.617 Annex D < ansiT1-617-B (4) -- ANSI T1.617 Annex B Was changed to: > ansiT1-617D (3), -- ANSI T1.617 Annex D > ansiT1-617B (4), -- ANSI T1.617 Annex B > ituT-933A (5), -- CCITT Q933 Annex A > ansiT1-617-1994D (6) -- ANSI T1.617a-1994 Annex D Currently RFC 1604 has a similar object and is: frLportVCSigProtocol OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { none(1), lmi(2), ansiT1617D(3), ansiT1617B(4), ccittQ933A(5) } Comment: I would suggest that to make it consistent between RFC 1604 and the current draft Frame Relay DTE MIB that the same names be used from frLportVCSigProtocol in RFC 1604 (even though the CCITT is now the ITU-T, it is better to keep things consistent where possible between the two RFCs). Other MIBs have also gotten rid of dash '-' characters as I believe they cause problems with some MIB compilers. Also are there any differences between T1.617D and T1.617a-1994 Annex D?? If so what are they?? Do they merit a separate MIB Object value?? frDlcmiStatus was added: > > frDlcmiStatus OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX INTEGER { > running (1), -- init complete, system running > fault (2), -- error threshold exceeded > initializing (3) -- system start up > } > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "This indicates the status of the Frame Relay interface > as determined by the performance of the dlcmi. If no > dlcmi is running, the Frame Relay interface will stay > in the running state indefinately." > ::= { frDlcmiEntry 11 } > Comment: change "indefinately" to "indefinitely" (spelling). For frDlcimAddressLen < two-octets (2), < three-octets (3), < four-octets (4) was changed to: > twoOctets (2), > threeOctets (3), > fourOctets (4) rfc 1604 has a similar object: frLportAddrDLCILen OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { twoOctets10Bits(1), threeOctets10Bits(2), threeOctets16Bits(3), fourOctets17Bits(4), fourOctets23Bits(5) } Comment: With the widespread use of RFC1315, and the imcompatibilities between the two sets of values, it does not make sense to align the two sets of values. However it is important to at least comment on how many bits per byte is meant in the replacement for RFC1315. This is important because for three octet and four octet values there are two bit length options. Text for frCircuitState was changed: < temporarily disable a given circuit." --- > temporarily disable a given circuit. > > The use of 'invalid' is deprecated in this SNMP > Version 2 MIB, in favor of frCircuitRowStatus." The full object and text in the new draft are as follows (Note this text is actually from the previous draft, only the indentation/formatting of the text is different): frCircuitState OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { invalid (1), active (2), inactive (3) } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Indicates whether the particular virtual cir- cuit is operational. In the absence of a Data Link Connection Management Interface, virtual circuit entries (rows) may be created by set- ting virtual circuit state to 'active', or deleted by changing Circuit state to 'invalid'. Whether or not the row actually disappears is left to the implementation, so this object may actually read as 'invalid' for some arbitrary length of time. It is also legal to set the state of a virtual circuit to 'inactive' to temporarily disable a given circuit. The use of 'invalid' is deprecated in this SNMP Version 2 MIB, in favor of frCircuitRowStatus." DEFVAL { active } ::= { frCircuitEntry 3 } Comments: If Invalid is truly drepecated (is it??) for both read and write than first the line: invalid (1), Should be changed (as in other updated MIBs) to: invalid (1), -- deprecated And the Description text needs to be properly reworded. If it is still possible to use invalid for writes, or to get invalid for reads, then it is not really deprecated. We must state how invalid applys (if at all). New frCircuitEntry objects were added. Comments added below within the text: > frCircuitMulticast OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX INTEGER { > unicast (1), > multicast (2) > } > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "This indicates whether this VC is used as a > multicast VC or a single destination" > ::= { frCircuitEntry 15 } Comments: Currently the Frame Relay Forum Multicast Implementation agreement defines several types of Multicast. You might want to change this to: unicast (1), oneWayMulticast (2) twoWayMulticast (3), nWayMulticast (4) > > frCircuitType OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX INTEGER { > static (1), > dynamic (2) > } > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "Indication of whether the VC was manually > created (static), or dynamically created > (dynamic) via the data link control managment > interface." > ::= { frCircuitEntry 16 } > Comments: You might want to change "created" to "created or configured by a network management entity". Also "managment" should be changed to "management" (spelling). > > frCircuitDiscards OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX Counter32 > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "The number of inbound frames dropped because > of format errors, or because the VC is inac- > tive." > ::= { frCircuitEntry 17 } > > > frCircuitRowStatus OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX RowStatus > MAX-ACCESS read-write > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "The SNMP Status of the row, used in row crea- > tion." > ::= { frCircuitEntry 18 } > Comments: I would make this the last object (#19). > > > frCircuitReceivedDEs OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX Counter32 > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "Number of frames received from the network in- > dicating that they were eligible for discard > since the virtual circuit was created. This > occurs when the remote DTE sets the DE flag, or > when in remote DTE's switch detects that the > frame was received as Excess Burst data." > REFERENCE > "American National Standard T1.618-1991, > Section 3.3.4" > ::= { frCircuitEntry 19 } > > > Comments: Change to object #18 (so Row status is last). NOTE the comments below are for frErrType. Apparently due to the .so frErrTable.v2 NROFF command being ignored (see above) it was not in version 5 (July version). Therefore I am keeping my comments in based on the last posting. For frErrType: < unknownDLCI(5), < dlcmiProtoErr(6), < dlcmiUnknownIE(7), < dlcmiSequenceErr(8), < dlcmiUnknownRpt(9), < noErrorSinceReset(10) Was changed to: > dlcmiProtoErr(5), > dlcmiUnknownIE(6), > dlcmiSequenceErr(7), > dlcmiUnknownRpt(8), > noErrorSinceReset(9) Comments: To keep backwards compatible with RFC1315, you cannot delete unknownDLCI(5) and renumber the others. You must deprecate it as follows: < unknownDLCI(5), -- deprecated < dlcmiProtoErr(6), < dlcmiUnknownIE(7), < dlcmiSequenceErr(8), < dlcmiUnknownRpt(9), < noErrorSinceReset(10) and you should state why it was deprecated.(Why was it deprecated?? I'd sure like to know.) for frErrData < SYNTAX OCTET STRING < ACCESS read-only < STATUS mandatory Was changed to: > SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(1..1600)) > MAX-ACCESS read-only > STATUS current Comments: Is specifying this size for the manager? Because I would think it would be impractical to have systems with multiple ports of frame relay to store large frames for every port in the system. 1600 bytes per port adds up very quickly. ********************** End specific comments ************************ Regards, Alan ********************************************************** Alan K. Bartky Email:alan@xylan.com Principal Software Engineer Voice:(714) 597-8042 XYLAN Corporation FAX: (714) 597-8342 15707 Rockfield Avenue Suite 155F Irvine CA. 92718 **********************************************************
- Comments to version 5.0 of Frame Relay DTE MIB Alan Bartky