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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 28 May 2013 22:48 UTC

Message-ID: <51A53407.3040404@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 00:47:35 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
References: <1753780.1369779353736.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <1753780.1369779353736.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010504060004090900090004"
Cc: "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>, "Robert G. Cole" <rgcole01@comcast.net>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-08.txt (UNCLASSIFIED)
Precedence: list

Bob, Randy,

    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.

My confusion comes from this question: what are "these objects" in the 
red sentence above?
- The indexes in the previous sentence?
- The object types in the previous sentence?
- The augmented objects?
- something else?

Regards, Benoit
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)" <robert.g.cole.civ@mail.mil>
>> Sent: May 28, 2013 12:44 PM
>> To: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, "Robert G. Cole" <rgcole01@comcast.net>
>> 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)
>>
>> 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.
> If the values need to be consistent in order for this to work correctly
> (and from the comments it sounds like they do) then a "SHOULD" is not
> appropriate.  If something will not work unless done in a particular way
> (e.g. the values of type NeighborRouterIndex here need to match the values
> used in the nhdp-mib in that system) then it's really a "MUST" situation.
>
> Randy
>
>

Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf… Randy Presuhn
Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB doctor review of draft-ietf… Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)