IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-08.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)

"Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil> Tue, 28 May 2013 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528E821F9670 for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RUOA2aNNJQBW for <mib-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 12:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86A911E80F6 for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 12:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3E.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.144) by edge-cols.mail.mil (131.64.100.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:44:21 +0000
Received: from UCOLHP9H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.5.190]) by UCOLHP3E.easf.csd.disa.mil ([131.64.100.144]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:44:28 +0000
From: "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil>
To: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, "Robert G. Cole" <rgcole01@comcast.net>
Thread-Topic: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-08.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thread-Index: AQHOU4w4M8ryljd3okSMN6LSy13U/Zka1ciAgAA0PTA=
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:44:26 +0000
Message-ID: <B9468E58D6A0A84AAD66FE4E694BEABB55E3336A@ucolhp9h.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <003001ce538c$aa4fb3c0$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> <51A4D7E9.2080800@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51A4D7E9.2080800@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.62.4]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01CE5BBA.3A3D1790"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-08.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mib-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:mib-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors>, <mailto:mib-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:44:43 -0000

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Benoit,

Not all the tables in the olsrv2-mib are augments to the nhdp-mib.  There
are some new tables in the olsrv2-mib as well.  Specifically, the
olsrv2TibAdRemoteRouterSetTable uses an index of syntax '
NeighborRouterIndex'.  I interpreted Randy's concerns as related to the use
of the NeighborRouterIndex in this table and in the nhdp-mib to ensure
consistency of indices.  It sounds as if my text changes need some further
clarifications.

Thanks,
Bob

Robert G. Cole
Comm:  443.395.8744
Email: robert.g.cole@us.army.mil


-----Original Message-----
From: mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mib-doctors-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:15 PM
To: Randy Presuhn; Robert G. Cole
Cc: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org; mib-doctors@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-08.txt

Hi Randy, Bob

One clarification please


	Issue RMP-050
	Location: 6.2.  Relationship to the NHDP-MIB
	Text: "locally significant but should be locally common"
	Issue: Is normative "should" intended here, or is this merely
	   implementation advice?  I think the normative requirement is
	   merely that the set of values and the semantics of each
	   individual value be identical for the two MIB modules
	   within a given SNMP context.  Anything beyond that is
	   implementation detail, and would properly be out of scope.
	Suggestion: remove the ambiguity.

Since we deal with an AUGMENT in this case, isn't it obvious that the
objects are identical?
The new text reads like this:

   OLSRv2 depends on the neighborhood information that is discovered by
   [RFC6130 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6130> ].  In order to access the
Objects relating to discovered
   neighbors, the State Group tables of the NHDP-MIB [RFC6779
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6779> ] module
   are aligned with this MIB module.  This is accomplished through the
   use of the AUGMENTS capability of SMIv2 and the definition of
   TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS in the NHDP-MIB module: specifically the
   NeighborRouterIndex.  These object types are used to develop indexes
   into common NHDP-MIB module and routing protocol State Group tables.
   The values of these objects and the semantics of each individual
   value SHOULD be identical for the two MIB modules within a given SNMP
   context.  This will allow for improved cross referencing of
   information across the two MIB modules within a given SNMP context.
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of "The values of these objects and the
semantics of each individual value"

Regards, Benoit   

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email