Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt

[Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:02 AM
>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; Benoit Claise
>>>> <[e-mail]>; EXT - [e-mail]
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Martin
>>>> Vigoureux
>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Glenn
>>>>>> Mansfield
>>>>>> Keeni
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:28 AM
>>>>>> To: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>; EXT - [e-mail]
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>>> Martin
>>>>>> Vigoureux <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Mach Chen
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors