Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 03 October 2016 16:41 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 7966412940C; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SaqQfEAtVW_R; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BD5712940A; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=34021; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1475512904; x=1476722504; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FAxBk8MmzxTnlUKTzKDqGfBMpEYU3DY7dmY3PbZIUrY=; b=NxC8fsDHlgmq4M1b6Od0EZG6zzAITEdVlJCsvl5U9VzhfZMTCFywm5OJ o/ehZRziIG3+1ve2vSFAS55RjfdJKE5Uc8+V1M4xuvEWk1fZfLTyYM9VD tlDXPj9q3N/xZ8LStpCW7OV4iS4IsWkGC0+6yWf5Vq8jZS78ozBf6RtZx o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BrAQDMiPJX/xbLJq1UCRkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM9AQEBAQF1KlKNMpZ/jB+IBIIDAxkNhXgCgh0UAQIBAQEBAQEBXieEYQEBAQMBAQEBFwEIFTYLDAQLEQQBAQECAiMDAgInHwkIBgEMBgIBAQULiDEIDq1/jGMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEcgQeFMYF9gliEHQMBBgEBGyyCWII9HQEEiDeRQYYniUqBbk6EGIMUI4VnhwuCE4NQg34eNoMgBReBUjw0AYUlAQENFweCAgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,438,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="646112028"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Oct 2016 16:41:40 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u93GfegT023864; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:41:40 GMT
To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni <glenn@cysols.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>
References: <56E7D219.7000902@orange.com> <56FBD402.9040102@cisco.com> <56FBDD81.6080502@cysols.com> <11152_1459347064_56FBDE78_11152_10229_1_56FBDE77.6030605@orange.com> <56FBE17E.5090609@cisco.com> <570C9586.7030905@cysols.com> <BLUPR0501MB17151A695785D4D8DD485633D4690@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <b4249e61-0a11-2ce1-c846-67096858fa2c@cysols.com> <BLUPR0501MB1715A3B288A27A39E99203B8D4490@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <c757a323-24a7-2696-657e-88f8e15e8a36@cysols.com> <f2d0c86e-5b2a-dbf9-e3a9-2bf66002f263@cysols.com> <93a5d459-3271-b7ad-fadc-156576c60b65@cysols.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <37e5086d-ce25-6b14-56d9-b53d46f863e2@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 18:41:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <93a5d459-3271-b7ad-fadc-156576c60b65@cysols.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mib-doctors/HUfyNkm-KT8u2eawdy5s5U5exRM>
Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib.all@ietf.org, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:41:49 -0000
Authors, Can you please finalize this draft. Glenn provided the first MIB doctor review in April! Regards, Benoit > Hi, > Any update on the MIB drafts? > Glenn > > On 2016/07/17 23:44, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote: >> Jeffrey and team, >> Any progress on the MIB matters >> (draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-05.txt, >> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-03.txt )? >> >> Glenn >> On 2016/06/07 18:39, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote: >>> Hi Jeffrey, >>> Thanks for the good work on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib >>> document. It took me some time to do this review. But now here it >>> is. A (near complete) review of >>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt is attached. Hope this helps. >>> I understand that the Security Considerations section is TBD. >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> On 2016/05/19 4:48, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: >>>> Hi Glenn, >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:glenn@cysols.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:02 AM >>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; Benoit Claise >>>>> <bclaise@cisco.com>; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com >>>>> <thomas.morin@orange.com> >>>>> Cc: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; ops-ads@ietf.org; Martin >>>>> Vigoureux >>>>> <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org; mib-doctors@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of >>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib- >>>>> 02.txt >>>>> >>>>> Jeffrey, >>>>> > Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments >>>>> > in the new revision: >>>>> Thanks for your cooperation. I will need at least one more revision >>>>> with the following comments/recommendations addressed before I will >>>>> be able to complete the detailed review. In the following the numbers >>>>> refer to the issue numbers in the initial review. The issues that are >>>>> addressed and closed are not listed. For brevity, the issue >>>>> descriptions have been trimmed. In case of doubts please look at the >>>>> response mail appended below. >>>>> Hope this helps. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your detailed comments/suggestions. I posted a new revision >>>> with the following issues addressed. >>>> >>>> URL: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Status: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib/ >>>> Htmlized: >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04 >>>> Diff: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04 >>>> >>>> >>>> Please see some notes below. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Glenn >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Comments: >>>>> >>>>> 1.1 >>>>> > I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB >>>>> objects - >>>>> We will comeback to this time and again, whereever possible make >>>>> matters explicit and clear. That will help. >>>>> > Is it enough to say something similar? For example: >>>>> > In particular, it describes common managed objects used >>>>> > to configure and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. >>>>> That is better. >>>> >>>> I take it that this is already closed in -03 revision. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.2 >>>>> > Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further. >>>>> PMSI explanation is good. >>>>> Please use the same style/format for I-PMSI and S-PMSI. >>>> >>>> I think -03 revision already use the same style/format for I-PMSI and >>>> S-PMSI? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.3 >>>>> > No difference. I was using "Layer 3" or "L3" but it was >>>>> pointed out >>>>> > that the layer 3 VPN is often referred to IP VPN in other RFCs >>>>> and I >>>>> > was advised to change it accordingly. Looks like I did not change >>>>> all >>>>> > the cases. >>>>> > On the other hand, I noticed that RFC 4382 does use "Layer 3 >>>>> VPN" so >>>>> > I'll change it back. >>>>> No problems. just make sure that the same expression/notation is used >>>>> uniformly. >>>> >>>> I take it that this is also addressed in -03 already. >>>> >>>>> 3. >>>>> > > > 3. Summary of MIB Module. >>>>> > > > An overview of the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB will be good- the >>>>> > > > structure of the MIB, short descriptions of the table(s) >>>>> > > > including usage of the table(s) for management and/or by >>>>> > > > other MIB(s). >>>>> > >>>>> > I had that, but have added one sentence about the only table. >>>>> A sentence or two about the textual convention will be good. >>>> >>>> Added in -04. >>>> >>>>> > > > 4. MIB syntax checking: >>>>> > > > smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB >>>>> 2>L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.txt >>>>> > >>>>> > I used simpleweb's validation tool but looks like I did not >>>>> use the >>>>> > strictest level of validation. I've now fixed the following issues >>>>> and >>>>> > verified. >>>>> Good. >>>>> 5. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > 5. REFERENCE clauses: Please use REFERENCE clauses liberally. >>>>> > > > Wherever possible, provide references for objects used in >>>>> > > > the MIB. The references will point to specific sections/ >>>>> > > > sub-sections of the RFCs defining the protocol for >>>>> which the >>>>> > > > MIB is being designed. It will greatly improve the >>>>> readability >>>>> > > > of the document. >>>>> > >>>>> > Added. >>>>> I would recommend using the REFERENCE clause as in rfs4382 and >>>>> improve on it. >>>>> Specifically, instead of keeping the reference in the DESCRIPTION >>>>> clause move it to a separate REFERENCE clause. The addition of the >>>>> section number is an improvement. It is friendlier to the reader. >>>>> Note. Same comment for other OBJECTs too. >>>> >>>> Oh I missed that. All fixed. >>>> >>>>> 7.1 >>>>> > > > 7.1 CONTACT-INFO >>>>> > > > Following the conventions (including indentation style) >>>>> will >>>>> > > > improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132). >>>>> > > > Will be good if it does not overflow into the next page. >>>>> > >>>>> > Fixed. >>>>> The format is OK. The Postal address etc., need not have been >>>>> deleted. Please put the complete contact information as in the >>>>> Author's Address. (RFC 2578 section 5.7 gives a usage example). >>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> >>>>> 7.3 >>>>> > I kept "experimental 99" so that I could continue to use mib >>>>> tools >>>>> > to validate; but I added notes for the editor to replace them >>>>> as you >>>>> > indicated. >>>>> Use of "experimental 99" is not recommended. >>>> >>>> Do you mean 99 is not a good number? What about 9999? As I explained, >>>> I kept it so that we can use mib tools to validate, and I've added >>>> detailed notes for the editor. >>>> >>>>> 8 >>>>> > > > 8. Specific MO and TC related comments. >>>>> > Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I >>>>> replace >>>>> > with things like rsvpP2mp. >>>>> Yes. Camelcase is an allowed practice. SMI does not mind it. >>>> >>>> Ok this is closed already then. >>>> >>>>> 8.2 >>>>> > > > 8.2 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> > The intent is to simply return the octet value of the flags >>>>> > field, w/o listing individual bits like "Leaf Information >>>>> Required". >>>>> > More bits could be defined in the future but the MIB would not >>>>> change. >>>>> > >>>>> > Is that OK? >>>>> As far as possible, the meaning of the objects must be made clear. >>>>> That will help implementors and operators- users of the MIB. >>>> >>>> I added the definition for one existing bit and reference to the IANA >>>> registry being created for this flag field. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.3 >>>>> > > > 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> > Depending on the tunnel type, there could be different sizes. >>>>> > Future tunnel types could have other sizes that not specified >>>>> > today. I was thinking to just give a size >>>>> > tPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE range so that it is flexible. >>>>> > Is that ok? >>>>> I see that you have changed the size upper limit to 50. >>>>> If the size varies continuously from 0 to 50 the above description >>>>> is correct. >>>>> Please confirm, explain and cite appropriate reference. If the size >>>>> may change in the future that must be stated too. >>>> >>>> I changed to discrete sizes for currently defined tunnel types. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.4 >>>>> > > > 8.4 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> > > > SYNTAX RowPointer >>>>> > > > MAX-ACCESS read-only >>>>> > > > STATUS current >>>>> > > > DESCRIPTION >>>>> > > > "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, >>>>> > > > this is the row pointer to the ifName table." >>>>> > > > o DESCRIPTION looks incorrect. Please fix it. Do you >>>>> > > > want to say this object points to the corresponding >>>>> > > > row in the ifTable? >>>>> > >>>>> > Yes. Fixed. >>>>> Not quite. >>>>> What is ifName table ? ifName is a columnar object in the >>>>> ifXTable. >>>>> Is l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf a pointer to the corresponding row in >>>>> the >>>>> ifXTable table ? Please fix accordingly. >>>> >>>> You're right. Fixed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 9. >>>>> > > > 9. The Security Considerations section does not follow >>>>> > > > the Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules >>>>> > > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security. >>>>> > > > Please fix. >>>>> > >>>>> > I was really hoping that it would not have to be that >>>>> > tedious. SNMP/MIB secur >>>>> ity should be no different from the >>>>> > CLI security - once you secure the infrastructure >>>>> > then what's more to do? >>>>> > >>>>> > I'll need more time to work on this. Let me try to address >>>>> > the issues in the other mib first and come back to this. >>>>> >>>>> Please take your time. Looking at examples will help. And let me >>>>> know where I can help. >>>> >>>> I will need to work on that later. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10.1 >>>>> > > > 10.1 Checking nits according to >>>>> > > > http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : >>>>> > Should I break them into different lines or just keep them >>>>> > as is? Any example of expected indentation if I break the >>>>> > lines? >>>>> No problems at all to break lines. >>>>> l2L3VpnMcastGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER >>>>> ::= {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 1} >>>>> Should do. >>>> >>>> Done. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10.2 >>>>> > > > 10.2 Checking references for intended status: Proposed >>>>> Standard >>>>> > > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7117' is mentioned on line >>>>> 76, >>>>> > > > but not defined >>>>> > > > 'described in [RFC6513, RFC6514, RFC 7117] and other >>>>> > I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC >>>>> 7117"). >>>>> I would recommend that you put it as [RFC6513], [RFC6514], [RFC7117] >>>>> That is simpler to parse. >>>> >>>> I see some other documents do not have comma between multiple >>>> references so I followed that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > > 11. There is another WIP MVPN-MIB in >>>>> > > > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt >>>>> > > > MVPN-MIB has objects that refer to L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB. >>>>> > > > Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? >>>>> > > > I have not seen any discussion or explanation on this. >>>>> > > > I may have missed it. >>>>> > > > Please clarify or, give some pointers. >>>>> > >>>>> > As mentioned in the introduction: >>>>> > >>>>> > this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS >>>>> > Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. >>>>> > MVPN-MIB is for MVPN. There was another VPLS Multicast MIB >>>>> > in the work and both would reference common >>>>> >>>>> > objects defined in this MIB. >>>>> >>>>> OK. So you are saying that this MIB contains core objects that >>>>> will be used to manage implementations of various multicast VPN >>>>> protocols e.g. [RFC7117], [RFC6513],[RFC6514] ? It will help if >>>>> you spell it out at the beginning. >>>> >>>> Yes. I thought I did it already: >>>> >>>> 1. Introduction >>>> >>>> ... and this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS >>>> Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Jeffrey >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> On 2016/04/16 21:47, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: >>>>>> Glenn, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments in >>>>>> the >>>>> new revision: >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess- >>>>> l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03.txt >>>>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3- >>>>> vpn-mcast-mib/ >>>>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn- >>>>> mcast-mib-03 >>>>>> Diff: >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3- >>>>> vpn-mcast-mib-03 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see below. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Abstract: >>>>>>> 1.1 A sentence on how the managed objects will be used by >>>>>>> applications for operations, monitoring and management >>>>>>> would be good. >>>>>> >>>>>> I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB objects >>>>>> - the >>>>> read-write ones are used to control how a device works, and the >>>>> read-only >>>>> ones are used for monitoring. Do I really need to say it explicitly? >>>>>> >>>>>> I see RFC 4382 has the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base >>>>>> (MIB) >>>>>> for use with network management protocols in the Internet >>>>>> community. >>>>>> In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or >>>>>> monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private >>>>>> Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label >>>>>> Switching >>>>>> Router (LSR) supporting this feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it enough to say something similar? For example: >>>>>> >>>>>> In particular, it describes common managed objects used to >>>>> configure >>>>>> and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Introduction >>>>>>> 2.1 Please give the full expansion of the abbreviations >>>>>>> appearing for the first time. (PE, VPLS,..) >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.2 The terminology section is a bit terse. Explaining the >>>>>>> terms that are used, nicely with reference to the protocol >>>>>>> documents will improve readability. >>>>>>> e.g. >>>>>>> - PMSI, I-PMSI, S-PMSI, provider tunnels >>>>>> >>>>>> As the paragraph alluded to, this MIB needs to be understood in the >>>>> general context of L2/L3 multicast VPN and providing good >>>>> explanation of >>>>> the terms is not attempted. The references for the terms are the the >>>>> RFCs >>>>> for the relevant technologies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.3 Is there a difference between >>>>>>> "multicast in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs , defined by >>>>>>> RFC 7117 and RFC 6513/6514" >>>>>>> used in the DESCRIPTION in the MODULE-IDENTITY >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> "multicast in BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN" >>>>>>> used in the DESCRIPTION of L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ? >>>>>>> If these are the same, it will be helpful to stick to the >>>>>>> same expression. If these are not the same, the dictinction >>>>>>> should be clarified. >>>>>> >>>>>> No difference. I was using "Layer 3" or "L3" but it was pointed out >>>>>> that >>>>> the layer 3 VPN is often referred to IP VPN in other RFCs and I was >>>>> advised to change it accordingly. Looks like I did not change all the >>>>> cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, I noticed that RFC 4382 does use "Layer 3 VPN" so >>>>> I'll change it back. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Summary of MIB Module. >>>>>>> An overview of the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB will be good- the >>>>>>> structure of the MIB, short descriptions of the table(s) >>>>>>> including usage of the table(s) for management and/or by >>>>>>> other MIB(s). >>>>>> >>>>>> I had that, but have added one sentence about the only table. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> MIB definitions: >>>>>>> 4. MIB syntax checking: >>>>>>> smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB >>>>>>> 2>L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> I used simpleweb's validation tool but looks like I did not use the >>>>> strictest level of validation. I've now fixed the following issues >>>>> and >>>>> verified. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:63: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `rsvp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:64: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `ldp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:65: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `pim-asm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:66: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `pim-ssm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:67: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `pim-bidir' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:68: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `ingress-replication' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:69: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>>>> number `ldp-mp2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>>> >>>>>> See later question/comments below. >>>>>> >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:215: [5] {group-unref} warning: current >>>>> group `l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup' is not referenced in this module >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:4: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `NOTIFICATION-TYPE' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:5: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `Unsigned32' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:8: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `NOTIFICATION-GROUP' imported from module `SNMPv2-CONF' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `TruthValue' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `RowStatus' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `TimeStamp' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `TimeInterval' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:15: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `SnmpAdminString' imported from module `SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB' is never >>>>> used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `InetAddress' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' is never used >>>>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: >>>>>>> identifier >>>>> `InetAddressType' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' is never >>>>> used >>>>>> >>>>>> Removed the above unused imports. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. REFERENCE clauses: Please use REFERENCE clauses liberally. >>>>>>> Wherever possible, provide references for objects used in >>>>>>> the MIB. The references will point to specific sections/ >>>>>>> sub-sections of the RFCs defining the protocol for which the >>>>>>> MIB is being designed. It will greatly improve the readability >>>>>>> of the document. >>>>>> >>>>>> Added. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6. IMPORTS clause >>>>>>> MIB modules from which items are imported must be cited and >>>>>>> included in the normative references. >>>>>>> The conventional style is >>>>>>> mplsStdMIB >>>>>>> FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- [RFC3811] >>>>>> >>>>>> Added. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 7. Please update the MODULE-IDENTITY. (There are no syntantic >>>>>>> errors.) >>>>>>> 7.1 CONTACT-INFO >>>>>>> Following the conventions (including indentation style) will >>>>>>> improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132). >>>>>>> Will be good if it does not overflow into the next page. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 7.2 REVISION clause: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181 >>>>>>> sec 4.5 >>>>>>> REVISION "200212132358Z" -- December 13, 2002 >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy." >>>>>>> -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this >>>>>>> note: >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 7.3 OID assignment: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181 >>>>>>> sec 4.5 i >>>>>>> replace >>>>>>> ::= { experimental 99 } -- number to be assigned >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> ::= { <subtree> XXX } >>>>>>> -- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this >>>>>>> note >>>>>>> <subtree> will be the subtree under which the module will be >>>>>>> registered. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I kept "experimental 99" so that I could continue to use mib >>>>>> tools to >>>>> validate; but I added notes for the editor to replace them as you >>>>> indicated. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8. Specific MO and TC related comments. >>>>>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "Types of provider tunnels used for multicast in >>>>>>> BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN." >>>>>>> SYNTAX INTEGER { unconfigured (0), >>>>>>> rsvp-p2mp (1), >>>>>>> ldp-p2mp (2), >>>>>>> pim-asm (3), >>>>>>> pim-ssm (4), >>>>>>> pim-bidir (5), >>>>>>> ingress-replication (6), >>>>>>> ldp-mp2mp (7) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o Would be nice to align the enumeration labels with the >>>>>>> labels in the protocol document RFC 6514 unless there is >>>>>>> a good reason for not doing so. (You will have to take >>>>>>> care of the smi compilation errors too; '-' is not allowed ). >>>>>> >>>>>> Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I replace >>>>> with things like rsvpP2mp. >>>>>> Or could/should I just remove the definitions, so that if a new >>>>>> type is >>>>> defined in the future there is no need to update the MIB? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8.1 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> SYNTAX L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry >>>>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "An entry in this table corresponds to an PMSI >>>>>>> attribute >>>>>>> that is advertised/received on this router. >>>>>>> For BGP-based signaling (for I-PMSI via >>>>>>> auto-discovery >>>>>>> procedure, or for S-PMSI via S-PMSI A-D routes), >>>>>>> they are just as signaled by BGP (RFC 6514 section 5, >>>>>>> 'PMSI Tunnel attribute'). >>>>>>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, >>>>>>> they're derived from S-PMSI Join Message >>>>>>> (RFC 6513 section 7.4.2, 'UDP-based Protocol').. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that BGP-based signaling may be used for >>>>>>> PIM-MVPN as well." >>>>>>> o Fix the ".." in "'UDP-based Protocol').." above. >>>>>>> o Please give the reference for this Table. >>>>>>> Is it- "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6513 Sec.4 ? >>>>>>> "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6514 Sec.5 ? >>>>>>> both? >>>>>>> Any other pointers? >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8.2 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1)) >>>>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, this >>>>>>> is 0. >>>>>>> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Flags >>>>>>> field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding >>>>>>> I/S-PMSI A-D route." >>>>>>> ::= { l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry 1 } >>>>>>> o Please confirm that the above is a complete enumeration >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> types of signalling. >>>>>>> o RFC 6514 Sec.5 says that the Flags field indicates >>>>>>> "Leaf Information Required". That is useful information. >>>>>>> Please include in the description. >>>>>> >>>>>> The intent is to simply return the octet value of the flags >>>>>> field, w/o >>>>> listing individual bits like "Leaf Information Required". More bits >>>>> could >>>>> be defined in the future but the MIB would not change. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that OK? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> SYNTAX OCTET STRING ( SIZE (0..37) ) >>>>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, the >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> four or sixteen octets of this attribute are filled >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the provider tunnel group address (IPv4 or IPv6).. >>>>>>> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Tunnel >>>>> Identifier >>>>>>> Field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding >>>>>>> I/S- >>>>> PMSI >>>>>>> A-D route." >>>>>>> o Check the size specifications. The specs above say it can be >>>>>>> all sizes 0..37. That is not clear from the DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> clause. >>>>>>> o Fix the ".." in "(IPv4 or IPv6).." above. >>>>>>> o RFC 6514 Sec 5. PMSI Tunnel Attribute gives the Tunnel >>>>> Identifiers >>>>>>> for mLDP, PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, BIDIR-PIM,Ingress >>>>>>> Replication,MP2MP. >>>>>>> It appears that the sizes (range) for each case will be >>>>>>> different. >>>>>>> Please clarify that, and if there are discrete sizes, specify >>>>>>> accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Depending on the tunnel type, there could be different sizes. Future >>>>> tunnel types could have other sizes that not specified today. I was >>>>> thinking to just give a size range so that it is flexible. Is that >>>>> ok? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> SYNTAX RowPointer >>>>>>> MAX-ACCESS read-only >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "If the tunnel exists in some MIB table, this is the >>>>>>> row pointer to it." >>>>>>> o "some MIB table" : specify which MIB table. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can give an example, like mplsTunnelTable [RFC 3812]. It could be >>>>> whatever table that a tunnel may be put into. >>>>>> >>>>>>> o In what case will the tunnel exist and in what case will it >>>>>>> not? >>>>>> >>>>>> If a device supports mplsTunnelTable and the tunnel is represented >>>>>> there, >>>>> then it exists. >>>>>> >>>>>>> o What will be the behaviour if the above condition is not >>>>> satisfied? >>>>>> >>>>>> A null pointer should be given. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8.4 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE >>>>>>> SYNTAX RowPointer >>>>>>> MAX-ACCESS read-only >>>>>>> STATUS current >>>>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>>>> "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, this >>>>>>> is the >>>>>>> row pointer to the ifName table." >>>>>>> o DESCRIPTION looks incorrect. Please fix it. Do you want >>>>>>> to say >>>>>>> this object points to the corresponding row in the ifTable? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. Fixed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> o In what case does the TunnelIf exist and in what case >>>>>>> will it >>>>> not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Some tunnels may not have a corresponding interface. >>>>>> >>>>>>> o What will be expected if the tunnel does not have a >>>>> corresponding >>>>>>> interface? >>>>>> >>>>>> Null row pointer. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 9. The Security Considerations section does not follow the Security >>>>>>> Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules >>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security. >>>>>>> Please fix. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was really hoping that it would not have to be that tedious. >>>>>> SNMP/MIB >>>>> security should be no different from the CLI security - once you >>>>> secure >>>>> the infrastructure then what's more to do? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll need more time to work on this. Let me try to address the >>>>>> issues in >>>>> the other mib first and come back to this. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10.ID-nits >>>>>>> 10.1 Checking nits according to >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> --------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, >>>>>>> the >>>>> longest one >>>>>>> being 3 characters in excess of 72. >>>>>> >>>>>> I fixed some but there still three too long lines: >>>>>> >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType >>>>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType, >>>>>> >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= >>>>>> {l2L3VpnMcastConformance >>>>> 1} >>>>>> l2L3VpnMcastCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= >>>>>> {l2L3VpnMcastConformance >>>>> 2} >>>>>> >>>>>> Should I break them into different lines or just keep them as is? >>>>>> Any >>>>> example of expected indentation if I break the lines? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10.2 Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> --------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7117' is mentioned on line 76, but >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> defined >>>>>>> 'described in [RFC6513, RFC6514, RFC 7117] and other >>>>>>> documents >>>>> tha...' >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC 7117"). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 11. There is another WIP MVPN-MIB in >>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt >>>>>>> MVPN-MIB has objects that refer to L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB. >>>>>>> Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? I have >>>>>>> not >>>>> seen >>>>>>> any discussion or explanation on this. I may have missed it. >>>>> Please >>>>>>> clarify or, give some pointers. >>>>>> >>>>>> As mentioned in the introduction: >>>>>> >>>>>> this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS >>>>>> Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. >>>>>> >>>>>> MVPN-MIB is for MVPN. There was another VPLS Multicast MIB in the >>>>>> work >>>>> and both would reference common objects defined in this MIB. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> Jeffrey >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glenn >>>>>>> Mansfield >>>>>>> Keeni >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:28 AM >>>>>>> To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>; EXT - >>>>>>> thomas.morin@orange.com >>>>>>> <thomas.morin@orange.com> >>>>>>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; ops-ads@ietf.org; >>>>> Martin >>>>>>> Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>; bess@ietf.org; Mach Chen >>>>>>> <mach.chen@huawei.com> >>>>>>> Subject: [bess] MIBDoc review of >>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib- >>>>> 02.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> I have been asked to do a MIB Doctors review of >>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt. >>>>>>> My knowledge of L2L3VPN Multicast is limited to the reading >>>>>>> of this document and browsing through the documents referred >>>>>>> to in the draft and bess-wg mailing list archives.( read >>>>>>> "shallow"). >>>>>>> So some of the doubts and questions may sound trivial or >>>>>>> strange. Please bear with me and help me help you make >>>>>>> this into a better document :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The comments are attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glenn >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> BESS mailing list >>>>>> BESS@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list >>> MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list >> MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors > > . >
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Benoit Claise
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bes… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bes… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bes… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bes… Glenn Mansfield Keeni
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bes… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bes… Hiroshi Tsunoda
- Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-i… Glenn Mansfield Keeni