Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445<draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-21.txt>

Good man, Randy.

Thanks for that. Just what I needed.

I'll pause just in case someone wants to cry out "Randy is wrong"

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com]
> Sent: 04 November 2011 21:22
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; mib-doctors@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445<draft-ietf-
> mpls-fastreroute-mib-21.txt>
> 
> Hi -
> 
> I believe SMICng in incorrect in classifying this situation as a
> warning; it should be classified as an error.  RFC 2578 is quite
> explicit in section 7.1.4, "The BITS construct":
> 
>    Finally, a label for a named-number enumeration must consist of one
>    or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64 characters, and the
>    initial character must be a lower-case letter.  (However, labels
>    longer than 32 characters are not recommended.)  Note that hyphens
>    are not allowed by this specification.
> 
> Calling a bit "LocalProtectionDesired" is a syntax error under the definition
> of the SMI, and must be corrected.
> 
> Randy
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 9:58 AM
> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] Advice please: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 6445<draft-ietf-mpls-
> fastreroute-mib-21.txt>
> 
> 
> > The RFC Editor has observed a number of problems in the MIB modules. The
> > shepherd write-up says:
> >
> > > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> > > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> > > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
> > > an automated checker?
> > >
> > > The document is a MIB and compiles clean.
> >
> > The document editor has responded to the RFC Editor that these are just
> compiler
> > warning and:
> >
> > > These warnings can safely be ignored.  Making the changes necessary to
> > > avoid those warnings will require significant changes to the MIB, and will
> > > not be of any real substantive change for implementations
> >
> > All the problems are SMICng warnings concerning the names of bits (see
> below).
> >
> > It seems to me that changing the names of these bits would not have a
> > significant impact on the document. Indeed, it would only take 15 seconds to
> > apply.
> >
> > There is some possibility that early implementations will suffer, but that
is
> > life.
> >
> > What I don't know is whether these warnings are important in any way, or are
> > just convention that we would normally stick to, but flunked during earlier
> > review.
> >
> > Thanks for any advice,
> > Adrian
> >
> > Using SMICng, we are receiving the following warnings all 3 MIB modules:
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (428,33) Name of bit "ARHopSessionAttrFlagsUnsupported"
> must
> > start with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to
> > "aRHopSessionAttrFlagsUnsupported"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (429,33) Name of bit "LocalProtectionDesired" must start
> > with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "localProtectionDesired"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (430,33) Name of bit "LabelRecordingDesired" must start
> with
> > a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "labelRecordingDesired"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (431,33) Name of bit "SEStyleDesired" must start with a
> > lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "sEStyleDesired"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (432,33) Name of bit "BandwidthProtectionDesired" must
> start
> > with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "bandwidthProtectionDesired"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (433,33) Name of bit "NodeProtectionDesired" must start
> with
> > a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "nodeProtectionDesired"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (452,34) Name of bit
> "ARHopRROSubObjectFlagsUnsupported"
> > must start with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to
> > "aRHopRROSubObjectFlagsUnsupported"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (453,34) Name of bit "LocalProtectionAvailable" must
start
> > with a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "localProtectionAvailable"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (454,34) Name of bit "LocalProtectionInUse" must start
with
> > a lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "localProtectionInUse"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (455,34) Name of bit "BandwidthProtection" must start
with
> a
> > lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "bandwidthProtection"
> >
> > W: f(rfc6445a.mi2), (456,34) Name of bit "NodeProtection" must start with a
> > lowercase letter Name of bit changed to "nodeProtection"
> >
> > *** 0 errors and 11 warnings in parsing
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> > MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors