Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07

[Hiroshi Tsunoda <[e-mail]>]

Dear Glenn,

Thank you very much for your thorough review.
I have greatly appreciated it.

I am going to check and update the draft taking into
account your comments.
I try to submit the updated draft by the end of next week.

Best regards,

-- tsuno

2017-05-01 12:32 GMT+02:00 Glenn Mansfield Keeni <[e-mail]>om>:
> Dear Tsuno/Zhang
>      Thanks for waiting. The review of
>  draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-07 follows.
>
> Glenn
>
> C1. Abstract:
>     The draft now defines 2 MIB modules.  Please revise the abstract
>     and probably the title of the document too.
>
> C2. The MIBs (L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB, L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB) compile OK.
>     (Three {type-unref} warnings are there, may be ignored.)
>
> C3. Page 4:
>       s/3.  Summary of MIB Module/
>         3.  Summary of MIB Modules/
>
> C4. Page 6: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
>       s/"Denotes a pointer to the row pertaining to a table entry/
>        /"This textual convention represents a pointer to a row in
>         the table represented by the following object of type
>         L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType./
>
> C5. Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer DESCRIPTION
>         The explanation in the last paragraph seems out of place.
>         It may be removed.
>
> C6  Page 7: L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointerType DESCRIPTION
>         it is unclear when the value 'null(0)' will be used.
>         Is this allowed only when the corresponding object of type
>         L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelPointer has a value that is a
>         zero-length string ? If yes, please make that clear.
>
> C7. Page 9: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeTable DESCRIPTION
>         s/created by a PE router/maintained by a PE router/
>
> C8. Page 12: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
>          Do you really want to keep this object in L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.
>          It will change every time a new "tunnel type" is added to
>          L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType. That will defeat the purpose
>          of separating L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB from L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
>          It may be a good idea to define a textual convention like
>              L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId
>          in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-TC-MIB and use that textual convention
>          in the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB
>
> C9. Page 13: l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId DESCRIPTION
> A.       s/Thus, the size of this object is 16 octets in IPv4/
>            Thus, the size of this object is 8 octets in IPv4/
> B.       The last 2 paragraphs do not tie up well with the previous
>          paragraphs in the DESCRIPTION.
> C.       In the last paragraph
>          "this object is a pair of source and group IP addresses"
>          is unlcear. Please clarify.
>
> C10. Page 15: Security Considerations
>          I would think that any field that reveals information about
>          a Multicast VPN and/or its members is sensitive.
>          Does the l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId field reveal
>          information about the participating members? If yes, it must
>          be marked as sensitive.
>
> C11. Editorial:
>
> A. This does not pertain to the MIBs as such,
>    but I am uncomfortable with the  several variations
>    of the phrase
>    "Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (VPN)
>     that support multicast"
>    that appears in the text. I do not have a solution
>    on hand but it would be perhaps be more readable to
>    define and use a simple name/notation the beast for
>    which the MIB is being designed (e.g. "L2L3VPNMCast").
>
> B. Same with the phrase
>     "Layer 2 (L2) and Layer 3 (L3) VPN (Virtual Private
>      Network)
>     it would be probably be easier on the reader if an
>     abbreviation like L2L3VPNs was used where ever
>     applicable.
>
> C12. P2:Para4: s/within MIB module specifications//;
>
> C13. General:
> A.      The DESCRIPTION clauses could do would some more
>         packing. (Too much space at the end of lines)
> B.      Please check the articles a/an/the once again. Some
>         usages do not seem right to me.
>
>
>
>