[MIB-DOCTORS] FW: The MIB doctor review comments to the draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-13.txt
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 26 April 2010 15:01 UTC
Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: mib-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mib-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672B53A6B9B for <mib-doctors@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.619, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2f+3hzP1eN2 for <mib-doctors@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A58F3A6C93 for <mib-doctors@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.52,273,1270440000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="13204166"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound-tmp.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2010 10:51:08 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.52,273,1270440000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="467807633"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2010 10:51:07 -0400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAE54F.DAE48147"
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:50:46 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0402144FE1@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: The MIB doctor review comments to the draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-13.txt
Thread-Index: AcriuT4MvBrePcJKQEiDPucdGDbeMwCgjARQAAUP0sA=
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "MIB Doctors (E-mail)" <mib-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: The MIB doctor review comments to the draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-13.txt
X-BeenThere: mib-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MIB Doctors list <mib-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:01:16 -0000
Richard tried twice to send this message to the MIB Doctors list, but it was not distributed or archived. Let me see if coming from me it is accepted. Dan ________________________________ From: young [mailto:young@h3c.com] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:29 PM To: davidz@oversi.com; ronc@resolutenetworks.com; thomas.nadeau@bt.com Cc: orly-n@actcom.com; bertietf@bwijnen.net; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); mib-doctors@ietf.org; andrew.g.malis@verizon.com; matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com; stbryant@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: The MIB doctor review comments to the draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-13.txt Hi, All: Since I was told that the mib-doctors@ietf.org has not got the message, I resend the following review comments again. Regards Richard //// /////////////////////////////////////// Hi, authors: Here is Richard and I was asked to do the MIB doctor review on the draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-13.txt. Sorry for the quite delay of giving review comments. Since it is my first review, Bert asked Orly to give the guidance. Although Orly and I finished the Individual review on time, a unexpected failure of my email box blocked us to merge our review comments together in time. Sorry always makes Orly very inconvenient. I appreciated Orly’s patience and guidance, and she gives a lot of valuable comments. The comments contain two parts. Part 1 is for the content (exception section 7) ; Part2 is for MIB definition (Section 7). Notes: We give both the text and line number in the comments. If the line number is not matched to yours, please search them by the text. The Part 1 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 1) Idnits check Idnits check has the following comments: 1- boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust:the draft is using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/ <http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/> ) 2- nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt> : page 1 has 67 lines where only 58 are allowed 2) abstract is ok 3) Requirements Language- I would not put it a separate section, it exist already in the introduction section 4) txt suggestion: 96 The model for CEP management is a MIB module. The PW-CEP-STD-MIB 97 module described in this document works closely with the MIB modules 98 described in [RFC5601] and the textual conventions defined in 99 [RFC5542]. In the spirit of the [RFC2863], a CEP connection will be 100 a pseudowire(PW) connection. It will not be treated as an interface and will therefore not be represented in the 101 ifTable 5) TDM can be used once it is defined, no need to repeat the long wording like in line 124 6) 140 Conversely, "inbound" is references the traffic the direction 7) Co-Authors section- I suggest to remove it all together and add ack to the people in the ack section 8) Feature Checklist section I suggest to call it overview 9)txt suggestion: 180 - The MIB module is designed to work with the PW-STD-MIB[RFC5601] 181 module. I think this is listed in the intro it is more important that these lines will say: Fit within the architecture defined by [RFC3985] and [PWMIB]. 10) txt suggestion 198 6.1. PW-CEP-STD-MIB Summary I would change the title to “ Structure of the MIB 11) Suggestion (Not Must do this change) Current the sections are organized by: MIB Module Description and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. PW-CEP-STD-MIB Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. MIB modules required for IMPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3. PW-STD-MIB Modules Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.4. PW-CEP-STD-MIB Module Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.5. Example of PW-CEP-STD-MIB Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I suggest (I think this way is more common) 6. Structure of the MIB Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- To replace the PW-CEP-STD-MIB Summary 7. Relationship to Other MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Besides the relationship, you could also descript that the MIB Modules Required for IMPORTS here. 8. MIB Module Description and Usage 8.1. PW-CEP-STD-MIB Module Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Example of PW-CEP-STD-MIB Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12) txt suggestion 221 - The CEP Performance 1 day Table (pwCepPerf1DayTable) contains historical intervals accumulated per day. Usually 30 one-day entries to cover a monthly period. 222 statistics accumulated during the current day and contains 223 previous days historical statistics. Note---Current day is fractional data so I believe it should be just complete days after first 24 hrs. 13) txt suggestion 312 In this This section we provides an example of using the MIB objects 313 described in Section 7 to set up a CEP PW. While this example is not 314 meant to illustrate every permutation of the MIB, it is intended as 315 an aid to understanding some of the key concepts. It is meant to be 316 read after going through the MIB itself. See [RFC5601] for an 317 example 318 of setting up PSN Tunnels. 14) Lines 404, 405 409, 410 should be removed 15) Acknowledgements The section can address the original authors as I mention abouve and anyothers who made contribution like: This document was produced by the PWE3 Working Group. Special thanks to xxxx who were the editor sof this document at the pre-WG versions of the drafts and to YYYY for close review and good suggestions. 16) Line 263: ifIndex, SONET/SDH Path Time slot, the pwCepCfgTable index, config Should be configuration instead of config. There are multiple such mistakes. Please fix them. Part 2: MIB definition //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 1) 449 -- Revision history. 450 REVISION "200712091200Z" Should reflect current date with no History. Or for last submission the full history and not just 1st. 2) Suggest the pwCepPerfIntervalNumber and pwCepConformanceCfgIndex use Unsigned32 instead of Integer32 3) lines:466 to 494 are confusing. Specially reading: 489 all four bits are set to 1 in this objects it represents a And 492 The relevant bits are the 28 least significant bits out of 493 the 32 bit value." Lines 489 says all 4 bits assuming there are 4 only and 493 address 28 out of 32. 4) 500 or TUG-3 containing TU-3 circuit. The value of 'other' MUST 501 be used if the Uuse of this object is not applicable." 5) 503 SYNTAX INTEGER { 504 other ( 1), If other means not applicable as the text suggested why not to call it NA? 6) 608 removed, the agent MAY SHOULD delete the associated PW rows 609 (e.g., this pwCepTableEntry). If the agent does not 610 delete the rows, it is RECOMMENDED MUST that the agent set this 7) 646 The peerZZZIncompatible bits are set if the local configuration 647 is not compatible with the peer configuration as available 648 from the CEP option received from the peer through the 649 signaling process and the the local node cannot support such 650 asymmetric configuration. Lines 646 to 650 should be removed seems duplicates 8) 661 VT to a PW. This table is indexed by the pwIndex of the 662 applicable PW entry in the pwTable should give the reference ([RFC5601]) to the pwTable. Please also check whether should add the reference in other places. It is same for "pwCepSonetExt tables" (line 1100). 9) 667 All read-write object in this table MAY be changed at any time, however change of some objects (for example pwCepCfgIndex) during PW forwarding state MAY cause traffic 670 disruption. [Richard] If all entries behave the same we can specify that in the table entry for all. If there are exception, the entry will indicate such, and then per exception, the relevant object will state how. 10) Inconsistent prefix of object name: [Richard] pwCepConfigError should be pwCepCfgConfigError, pwCepSonetPayloadLength should be PwCepCfgCepSonetPayloadLength 11)The description of pwCepCfgRowStatus It says: None of the read-create objects values can be changed when pwCepCfgRowStatus is in the active(1) state. Changes are allowed when the pwRowStatus is in notInService(2) or notReady(3) states only. [Richard] Suggest that the value of pwCepCfgName can be changed when pwCepCfgRowStatus is in state 'active' or in 'notInService'. Otherwise, it would be inconvenient for NMS operation. Please check whether any other MIB object in the table have this similar requirement. There are two ways to make changes: a. Only do some change on the description of pwCepCfgRowStatus You could refer to http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5833.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5833.txt> See the description of capwapBaseAcNameListRowStatus, capwapBaseWtpProfileRowStatus. b. Or you give some text such as ” Object MAY be changed at any time” in the description of pwCepCfgRowStatus, and add some row operation description in each object’s (such as pwCepCfgName) description. 12) Question: Should the MIB define some notification such as CEP Failure event, CEP PW down event? 13)The description of pwCepFracRowStatus looks a bit simple. Suggest to give some text similar to pwCepCfgRowStatus. 14) in the conf section it says This group is only mandatory….., maybe better say This group is mandatory only… 15) In the section 7, some key words such as PW , NSP should give expanded words. * Notes: To get a MIB file, the guy usually just take a copy of section 7. Object Definitions. The words such as PW better have a expansion. 16) Question: Line 764: Why "-- Status Only" is only for peerDbaIncompatible ( 3), not for peerEbmIncompatible and peerRtpIncompatible? Same question is for peerEbmAsymmetric, peerRtpAsymmetric, peerAsyncAsymmetric. 17) The description of pwCepFracTable does not give any text about the persistence of writable objects in the table. 18) Suggestion: I think that the pwCepCfgIndex is a better name than pwCepCfgTableIndex Regards Richard
- [MIB-DOCTORS] FW: The MIB doctor review comments … Romascanu, Dan (Dan)