Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [Rserpool] Last Call: draft-ietf-rserpool-mib (Reliable ServerPooling: Management Information Base using SMIv2) toExperimental RFC)

["Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Thomas for the quick turn-arounds. This helps a lot with context-switching.
In other words, this way I can quickly re-check (as opposed to some MIB reviews 
I have done where it takes montsh for a new revision to show up).

The SMICng check show two naming issues left:

  C:\bw\smicng\work>smicng rserpool.inc
  W: f(rserpool.mi2), (761,1) Sequence "RserpoolPoolElementEntry" and Row "rserpoolPEEntry" should have related names
  W: f(rserpool.mi2), (1074,1) Sequence "RserpoolPoolUserEntry" and Row "rserpoolPUEntry" should have related names

  *** 0 errors and 2 warnings in parsing

Further, you claim:
> The normal setup (according to rfc4181) would be something like:
>
> rserpoolMIBObjects          OBJECT-IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 1 }
> rserpoolMIBConformance  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 2 }
>
> rserpoolENRPServers       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 1 }
> rserpoolPoolElements      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 2 }
> rserpoolPoolUsers           OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 3 }
>
> Your new MIB module has no indertation at all.
> Not a fatal flaw, but does not help in readability.

Fixed.


But I do nto see that fix, do I ??

Bert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Thomas Dreibholz 
  To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) 
  Cc: [e-mail] ; MIB Doctors (E-mail) ; David B Harrington 
  Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Rserpool] Last Call: draft-ietf-rserpool-mib (Reliable ServerPooling: Management Information Base using SMIv2) toExperimental RFC)


  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
  Hash: SHA1

  Dear all,

  attached to this mail you find the updated version of the RSerPool MIB module.

  See my comments inline.


  > >> - According to RFC4181 this one
  > >>          rserpoolMIBConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 4 }
  > >>    should change to
  > >>             rserpoolMIBConformance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 2
  > >> }
  > >
  > > 1 is used for the ENRP servers branch, 2 is used for PE branch, 3 for PU
  > > branch. The next available number is 4.

  Fixed.


  > The normal setup (according to rfc41`81) would be something like:
  >
  > rserpoolMIBObjects          OBJECT-IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 1 }
  > rserpoolMIBConformance  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIB 2 }
  >
  > rserpoolENRPServers       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 1 }
  > rserpoolPoolElements      OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 2 }
  > rserpoolPoolUsers           OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { rserpoolMIBObjects 3 }
  >
  > Your new MIB module has no indertation at all.
  > Not a fatal flaw, but does not help in readability.

  Fixed.


  > The new MIB module causes these SMICng warnings:
  > W: f(rserpool.mi2), (137,1) Sequence "RSerPoolENRPEntry" and Row
  > "rserpoolENRPEntry" should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (276,1)
  > Sequence "RSerPoolENRPPoolEntry" and Row "rserpoolENRPPoolEntry" should
  > have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (315,1) Sequence
  > "RSerPoolENRPPoolElementEntry" and Row "rserpoolENRPPoolElementEntry"
  > should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (465,1) Sequence
  > "RSerPoolENRPASAPAddrTableEntry" and Row "rserpoolENRPASAPAddrTableEntry"
  > should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (520,1) Sequence
  > "RSerPoolENRPUserAddrTableEntry" and Row "rserpoolENRPUserAddrTableEntry"
  > should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (584,1) Sequence
  > "RSerPoolENRPENRPAddrTableEntry" and Row "rserpoolENRPENRPAddrTableEntry"
  > should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (636,1) Sequence
  > "RSerPoolENRPPeerEntry" and Row "rserpoolENRPPeerEntry" should have related
  > names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (695,1) Sequence "RSerPoolENRPPeerAddrTableEntry"
  > and Row "rserpoolENRPPeerAddrTableEntry" should have related names W:
  > f(rserpool.mi2), (753,1) Sequence "RSerPoolPoolElementEntry" and Row
  > "rserpoolPEEntry" should have related names W: f(rserpool.mi2), (941,1)
  > Sequence "RSerPoolPEASAPAddrTableEntry" and Row
  > "rserpoolPEASAPAddrTableEntry" should have related names W:
  > f(rserpool.mi2), (994,1) Sequence "RSerPoolPEUserAddrTableEntry" and Row
  > "rserpoolPEUserAddrTableEntry" should have related names W:
  > f(rserpool.mi2), (1060,1) Sequence "RSerPoolPoolUserEntry" and Row
  > "rserpoolPUEntry" should have related names
  >
  > *** 0 errors and 12 warnings in parsing
  >
  > Probably cause by sticking to a better naming convention. Bit it would be
  > consistent throughout. It seems likd what you have is not absolutely
  > incorrect. Yet... it is certainly not following the way things are normally
  > done.
  >
  > I think this is more what I would expect:
  >
  >    rserpoolENRPTable OBJECT-TYPE
  >    SYNTAX     SEQUENCE OF RserpoolENRPEntry
  >
  > Then the ENTRY spec should read like:
  >
  >    rserpoolENRPEntry OBJECT-TYPE
  >    SYNTAX     RserpoolENRPEntry
  >
  > And then:
  >
  >    RserpoolENRPEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
  >    rserpoolENRPIndex                Unsigned32,
  >
  >
  > Same further down in the MIB module.

  I replaced the prefix RSerPool by Rserpool. The warning should be fixed now. 
  Bert, please could you run the SMICng program again on the updated MIB module?

  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
  Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

  iEYEARECAAYFAkmKh3IACgkQ32BbsHYPLWVI/wCffN6IE/gABUiaqRHRCaXrcm74
  ZqAAn3ETcUhzC8nPrhoMJ8QeKZ2Iv/CT
  =1J4Z
  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----