Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MPLS-RT review of draft-tiruveedhula-mpls-mldp-mib-04

[Kishore Tiruveedhula <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Joan for reviewing this. I will update the doc for the comments.

Thanks,
Kishore

On 5/21/15, 11:52 AM, "Joan Cucchiara" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hello,  (also cc'ing MIB Doctors)
>
>To the question of is this MIB Module ready for WG adoption,
>unfortunately,  I would say "no" due to some very outdated practices that
>the authors are using which make the MIB Module NOT technically sound.
>The following two issues are very well-documented in the MIB Review
>guidelines (RFC418).   These should be extremely easy fixes, but I would
>implore that the authors  take care NOT to repeat these outdated
>practices in future draft versions.
>
>1) The  sub-id MUST be requested from IANA when the document becomes an
>RFC.  Please do NOT assign a sub-id yourselves.
>Please refer to  RFC4181.
>
>         ::= { mplsStdMIB 99 }
>
>2) LAST-UPDATED and (latest) REVISION clause dates do not agree.   They
>should always agree.  Again, please refer to RFC4181.
>
>Also, since the above needs to be updated, would also ask that the
>authors use the word "Notifications" instead of "Traps" in Section 4.
>and also put the "END" clause on the MIB Module.
>
>General Comments:
>------------------------------
>
>The approach of extending/Augmenting with existing MIB Modules, RFC3815
>and RFC3813 is a good way to  approach this MIB Module in my opinion.
>Also, glad to see that the REFERENCE Clauses are used as this helps out
>tremendously with reviewing and implementing.
>
>Potential Unknown:
>
>Would caution that NOT all of the tables seem to contain valid indices,
>as such, I do not completely understand all of the relationships between
>tables in this MIB and the other MIB Modules.  This may not be an issue
>at all, but just something to be aware of for future MIB reviews.
>Having said that, it does seem that the authors are heading in a good
>direction by making use of existing MIB Modules with extending/augmenting
>tables in this draft.   At this point, I do not have a specific concern
>and think that this will be developed during the WG group process.
>
>Review Considerations for Reviewers, specifically:
>=========================================
>"whether the document is coherent, is it useful
>(ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is
>the
>document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether the
>document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to
>be perfect at this point, but should be a good start)."
>
>Document is coherent in that the objects defined are useful and support
>new features of LDP.  Also, the overall organization seems like a good
>approach.   I think a good deal of thought went into the proposed MIB
>Module with regard to leveraging from existing MIB Modules.
>
>I do think that it would be useful in an operational network as this MIB
>Module extends/augments existing MIB Modules which are widely deployed.
>
>Thanks,
> -Joan
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 9:59 AM
>> To: [e-mail]; Young Lee; Joan Cucchiara
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Mach Chen; draft-tiruveedhula-mpls-mldp-
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-tiruveedhula-mpls-mldp-mib-04
>> 
>> Sam, Young and Joan,
>> 
>> 
>> You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-tiruveedhula- mpls-
>> mldp-mib.
>> 
>> Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
>>that
>> this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
>>document.
>> 
>> Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful
>> (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and
>>is the
>> document technically sound?  We are interested in knowing whether the
>> document is ready to be considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have
>>to
>> be perfect at this point, but should be a good start).
>> 
>> Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
>> secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
>>may
>> be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>> 
>> Mach Chen is the document shepherd for this draft, the reviews should be
>> sent to him also.
>> 
>> If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
>> *really* need to be resolved before adopting it as a working group
>> document, and what can wait until the document is a working group
>> document and the working group has the revision control.
>> 
>> Are you able to review this draft by May 26, 2015? Please respond in a
>>timely
>> fashion.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, Loa
>> (as MPLS WG chair)
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>> 
>> 
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2014.0.4800 / Virus Database: 4311/9748 - Release Date:
>>05/11/15
>