Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-mib-01

["Joan Cucchiara" <[e-mail]>]

HI Kishore,

Yes, please change to NOT use hyphens.    Could you update doc and send me a
version of the draft when the MIB compiles cleanly?

Thanks,
-Joan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: MIB-DOCTORS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Kishore Tiruveedhula
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:03 PM
> To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] MIB Dr. review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-mib-01
> 
> Hi Joan,
> 
>   Thanks for the review.
> 
> I addressed your comments and attached new draft. I will post it later as
cut
> off date passed for IETF98.
> I will double check with the MIB compiler before posting the draft. Please
let
> me know if any comments in the attached new draft.
> 
> One question about hyphen. With the hyphen, it is giving below warning.
> Without hyphen should I changed to single word like
> ³upstreamLabelAssignment" ?
> 
> ----------------
> ibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:279: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named bit
> `upstream-label-assignment' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:283: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named bit
> `prot-lsr' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:286: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named bit
> `node-prot' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
> --------------
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kishore
> 
> 
> On 3/21/17, 7:38 AM, "Kishore Tiruveedhula" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Loa,
> >    I missed Joan's below email.
> >I will address all the comments today.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Kishore
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Mar 21, 2017, at 6:55 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Authors,
> >>
> >> This draft is expiring, I also have the comments below from Joan.
> >>When do you think this will  be fixed?
> >>
> >> /Loa
> >>
> >>> On 2017-02-11 10:20, Joan Cucchiara wrote:
> >>> Hello Authors,
> >>>
> >>> This draft has come a long way since the previous version.  Thanks
> >>>for that.
> >>>
> >>> Please make sure the MIB compiles with smilint prior to MIB review
> >>>as it  is difficult to review a  MIB Module that doesn't compile.
> >>>
> >>> Also, please add compliance statements and conformance groups.
> >>>
> >>> Comments below.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Joan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> output from smilint compiler:
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> While processing your request the following errors and/or warnings
> >>> have been found:
> >>>
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:76: [5] {date-year-2digits} warning: date
> >>>specification `2016092600Z' contains a two-digit year representing
> >>>`1920'
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:76: [2] {date-month} date specification
> >>>`2016092600Z' contains an illegal month
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:76: [2] {date-hour} date specification
> >>>`2016092600Z' contains an illegal hour
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:76: [4] {date-in-past} warning: date
> >>>specification `2016092600Z' predates the SMI standard
> >>>
> >>> Then after that was fixed, more errors:
> >>>
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:268: [2] {identifier-redefined} redefinition
> >>> of identifier `mplsLdpPeerCapabilityEntry'
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:254: [6] {previous-definition} info: previous
> >>> definition of `mplsLdpPeerCapabilityEntry'
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:268: [1] {internal-other} syntax error,
> >>> unexpected COLON_COLON_EQUAL, expecting OBJECT
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:271: [5] {internal-flushing} warning:
> >>> flushing recent incorrect declaration, see previous error(s)
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:279: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
> bit
> >>> `upstream-label-assignment' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:283: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
> bit
> >>> `prot-lsr' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:286: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named
> bit
> >>> `node-prot' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:386: [1] {internal-other} syntax error,
> >>> unexpected UPPERCASE_IDENTIFIER, expecting COLON_COLON_EQUAL
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:417: [5] {internal-flushing} warning:
> >>> flushing recent incorrect declaration, see previous error(s)
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:482: [2] {description-missing} description
> >>> missing in object definition
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:482: [1] {internal-other} syntax error,
> >>> unexpected MAX_ACCESS, expecting COLON_COLON_EQUAL
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:493: [5] {internal-flushing} warning:
> >>> flushing recent incorrect declaration, see previous error(s)
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:1060: [1] {internal-other} syntax error,
> >>> unexpected '}', expecting UPPERCASE_IDENTIFIER or
> >>> LOWERCASE_IDENTIFIER or NUMBER
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:1060: [5] {internal-flushing} warning:
> >>> flushing recent incorrect declaration, see previous error(s)
> >>> mibs/MPLS-MLDP-STD-MIB:1061: [1] {internal-other} syntax error,
> >>> unexpected STATUS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> General Comments (please check throughout document)
> >>>
> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>---
> >>>---------
> >>> *) Need to get this to compile using smilint.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *) When other documents (RFCs or drafts) are mentioned, there should
> >>> be a reference notation given.  Please fix this throughout the draft.
> 
> [Kishore] Fixed.
> 
> >>>
> >>> *) Naming Conventions:  Please refer to RFC4181 (MIB guidelines).
> >>> Basically, the naming conventions used in this MIB Module do not
> >>> follow the recommended naming conventions (Appendix C).
> >>>
> >>> Prefix should be used throughout for all objects/tables/entries etc.
> >>> So "mplsMldp" needs to be used consistently.
> 
> [Kishore] All objects have mplsMldp. The only table
> mplsLdpPeerCapabilityTable is not defined in the LDP MIB. I added in the
> mLDP MIB.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *) Think there are more AUGMENTS relationships between RFC3815
> >>> Tables and Tables in this MIB Module but they are not defined as
> >>> AUGMENTS within the MIB Module but are described as such within the
> >>> document sections.   Please make sure that the relationships between
> >>> these tables are clarified.
> >>> e.g.  mplsMldpPeerCapabilityTable and mplsLdpPeerTable
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 2.
> 
> [Kishore] Ok. I will more text to clarify this. As the
> mplsLdpPeerCapabilityTable is not defined the STD-LDP-MIB, this table is
> defined in MLDP MIB.
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> Remove the first paragraph.  Think this is understood.
> >>>
> >>>   [[CREF1: The title and text for this section has been copied from
the
> >>>   official boilerplate, and should not be modified unless the official
> >>>   boilerplate text from the OPS Area web site has changed.  See
RFC4818
> >>>   section 3.1 for a discussion of the boilerplate section.]]
> 
> [Kishore] Removed this section.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 4. Overview
> >>>
> >>> *) Make sure the RFCs/drafts listed are referenced as being in the
> >>>References Section (probably the Normative References section).  Some
> >>>of  them are, some of the are not.  Be consistent.
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> *) Not very helpful to list a bunch of documents and not specify which
> >>> features (i.e. specify the sections/sub-sections) appear in which
> >>> documents.
> >>> We already can see the list of documents in the References section so
> >>> unless features/sections/subsections from these docs are specified per
> >>> document, then don't see this as adding information.
> 
> [Kishore] Fixed.
> 
> >>>
> >>> *) Also, some out of date listings, so need to update these.
> >>> ietf-rtgwg-mofrr is an RFC as of 8/2015
> 
> [Kishore] Changed to RFC7431.
> 
> 
> >>> ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection is an RFC as of 1/2016
> 
> [Kishore]  Changed to RFC 7715.
> 
> >>>
> >>> *) typo:  ...stats per per Interface
> 
> [Kishore] Fixed.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 6.2
> >>>
> >>>   mplsMldpSessionStatsTable : This table contains the number of mLDP
> >>>   FECs received and advertised to particular LDP session.
> >>>
> >>> s/to particular LDP session/ to a particular LDP session/
> 
> [Kishore] Fixed.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 7.
> >>>
> >>>   There are ten scalars, listed below are defined for this MIB module.
> >>>
> >>> *) above sentence is awkward.  Maybe something like:
> >>>
> >>> The following scalars are defined in this MIB Module:
> 
> [Kishore] Fixed.
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 8.1
> >>>
> >>> *) s/from LDP peer/from an LDP peer/
> 
> [Kishore] Fixed.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 8.5
> >>>
> >>> typo in section's title
> >>> s/Upstreaam/Upstream/
> 
> [Kishore] Done.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Section 8.6
> >>>
> >>> s/gives the information/gives information/
> 
> [Kishore] Done.
> 
> >>> s/about number/about the number of/  (2 occurrences)
> 
> [Kishore] Done.
> 
> >>>
> >>> s/received on particualr/received on a particular/
> 
> [Kishore] Done.
> 
> >>>
> >>> Please note:  will review the other sections once the MIB compiles and
> >>> compliance statements are added.
> 
> [Kishore] Ok.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> References Section:
> >>> *) Some references (drafts) out of date and RFCs are out of order
> >>> References.  Please update.
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> Other
> >>> *) Please remove Appendix A and Appendix B (and regenerate the Table
> of
> >>> Contents.)
> 
> [Kishore] Done.
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> >> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> >> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]