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