Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [manet] MIB doctor "skim" of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-11.txt

Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Fri, 14 June 2013 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.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 CC1FA21F9A43; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sXJI87F06Yzj; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5694321F9B7F; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=SQup08gWAKVN1ODyen10glt7TJbShSAX+1hnIQFDQMp0YeQb+2Ph5j6WbleGRv2I; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [209.86.224.42] (helo=elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1UnYZE-0006ui-6Q; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:17:44 -0400
Received: from 99.33.92.75 by webmail.earthlink.net with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:17:43 -0400
Message-ID: <13815749.1371233863980.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:17:43 -0700
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <chris.dearlove@baesystems.com>, "mib-doctors@ietf.org" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>, "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888ba196d48fc2e3f086b9f95b9dc33391f89f27a553ae87b50350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 209.86.224.42
Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [manet] MIB doctor "skim" of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-11.txt
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:17:52 -0000

Hi -

In response to this comment:
RMP-308
Something I overlooked on previous passes:
olsrv2RxHoldTime, olsrv2PHoldTime, olsrv2FHoldTime,
olsrv2TpMaxJitter, olsrv2TtMaxJitter, olsrv2FMaxJitter:
are the maximum values for these *really* more than
49 days? 

There was this:
>From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" 
>Sent: Jun 14, 2013 1:47 AM
>To: Randy Presuhn , "mib-doctors@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" , "manet@ietf.org" 
>Subject: RE: [manet] MIB doctor "skim" of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-11.txt
>
>With regard to the maximum long period for timing information,
> something abou the figure you indicate is the maximum value
> representable using the RFC 5497 format.
>
>Is it realistic? I can see a use for a large figure,
>if running a MANET in part over reliable fixed links.
>But essentially the original format had a 4/4 split of bits,
>and its maximum was deemed too short. 5/3 gave a long figure,
>even setting granularity to a binary millisecond.
...

Using the RFC 5497 section 5 formulas, the maximum value
representable (a = 7, b = 31, c = 1/1,024 {or is it .001?})
comes to 3,932,160 seconds, or about 45 days right?
That's less than the upper bound of the Unsigned32 data
type, so if the architecture truly supports the whole range
of the RFC 5497 representation for these values, then the
SMI data type should be restricted to an upper bound of
3,932,160,000 rather than the 4,294,967,295 that comes
with the Unsigned32 data type. (Of course, someone should
check my math.)

Rationale: it's generally a bad idea to permit a management
interface to configure architecturally impossible settings.

Perhaps this perfectly reasonable given the operational
characteristics of this protocol (I'm ignorant on the topic)
but permitting configuration of (for example) a jitter term
to have a value of more than 6 weeks, particularly given
the recommendations of RFC 5148, doesn't seem to make a
great deal of sense.

Rationale: we have a tradition of giving operators plenty
of rope with which to hang themselves, but this seems
excessive. :-)

Randy